Business Before Questions

New Writ

Ordered,
That Mr Speaker do issue his Warrant to the Clerk of the Crown to make out a new Writ for the electing of a Member to serve in this present Parliament for the Borough Constituency of Birmingham, Erdington, in the room of John Eugene Joseph Dromey, deceased.—(Sir Alan Campbell.)

Oral
Answers to
Questions

Education

The Secretary of State was asked—

Education Settings: Safe Learning

Bob Blackman: What steps his Department is taking to ensure that pupils can learn safely in education settings.

Robin Walker: Mr Speaker, I am answering this question on behalf of the Secretary of State, who, as you know, is isolating having tested positive for covid over the weekend.
May I offer my condolences to the family and friends on the day of the funeral of the late Member for Birmingham, Erdington?
Our top priority remains to protect face-to-face education. To reduce transmission of covid-19, regular testing continues across education and childcare, with over 109.5 million tests completed. A further £8 million will support the in-school vaccination programme. To improve ventilation, we have delivered over 353,000 carbon dioxide monitors and purchased up to 9,000 air cleaning devices.

Bob Blackman: I express my sincere condolences to the Mother of the House and the entire family on the sad loss of the Member for Birmingham, Erdington.
I am sure that my hon. Friend will join me in thanking and congratulating the headteachers and staff at all our schools—those in Harrow in particular—for keeping schools open as often as possible so that children can learn, as they should, in the classroom. Will he, however, join me in expressing the view that forcing young children to wear a face covering for seven hours a day is unfair, particularly for those who are hard of hearing?

Robin Walker: I join my hon. Friend in paying tribute to the immense contribution of teachers, leaders and all who work in our schools. We have consistently seen 99.9% of education settings open to support face-to-face education. The Secretary of State always said that, while masks in classrooms were brought in for a period as we tried to study the impact of omicron, they should not be in place for a day longer than necessary. We no longer recommend them, and no child should be denied the opportunity to study for refusing to wear a mask.

Catherine West: Safety includes warmth. What will the Minister say to schools such as the one that contacted me this morning to say that, due to its £30,000 energy bill, it will not be able to manage its budget this year? It is very worried about what it can spend on fruit, books, salaries and all the other things that a small primary school needs. What urgent action will he take?

Robin Walker: We recognise some of the pressures facing schools and, indeed, all parts of the economy as a result of rising energy costs. That is part of the reason why we have provided a £4 billion increase for schools in the next financial year, which is allowing them to deliver on all the pressures that they are currently facing.

Lindsay Hoyle: I call the Chair of the Education Committee, Robert Halfon.

Robert Halfon: The Centre for Social Justice report published yesterday showed that more than 100,000 “ghost children” are still not returning to school for the most part, almost 800 schools are missing entirely a class-worth of pupils, and more than 13,000 children in year 11—a critical exam year—are severely absent from school. Will the Department get the proper data to find out where those children are and what is happening to them? Will it do as the CSJ has recommended and use the forecast underspend from the national tutoring programme to appoint 2,000 attendance officers to work with families to get those children back into school and learning again?

Robin Walker: I share my right hon. Friend’s passion for ensuring that children are in school. I have discussed with the Children’s Commissioner the designation of “ghost children”, which we both feel is somewhat unhelpful. These are flesh and blood children who deserve to be in school and have the chance to benefit from face-to-face education. I assure him that addressing attendance and ensuring that they all have the opportunity to be safely in school is a top priority.

Andrew Gwynne: I, too, want children to be taught in safe spaces. That brings me yet again to the plight of Russell Scott Primary School in Denton, where, as the Minister knows, a botched £2.7 million refurbishment by Carillion has left the school with wrecked footings; a leaking roof; defective fire safety measures; inadequate drainage that floods the school with raw sewage; and playing fields that still resemble the Somme. It needs £5 million for that to be put right, or a new build. Baroness Barran wrote to me last week and basically said, “Tough—there’s no money.” That is not acceptable, is it? This is not levelling up. Let us get the purse strings opened and rebuild Russell Scott.

Robin Walker: The hon. Gentleman is clearly a champion for that school—he has made the case for it many times before. I would be surprised if that was the content of my noble Friend’s letter, because a programme is due to open shortly, as he will know. Of course, we cannot pre-empt the programme, but I know that he has made a strong case for his school.

Maria Miller: Ofsted’s inquiry last year into the Everyone’s Invited campaign, which exposed sexual harassment and other safeguarding concerns in schools, focused on the importance of mandatory sex and relationship education, as did Ministers. As a result of the actions of this Government, such education is mandatory for all school-age children. Will the Minister look to Ofsted to do further work on how schools are implementing relationship and sex education, because I am sure Members across the House are concerned about that?

Robin Walker: I know from discussions with Her Majesty’s chief inspector that this is a priority for Ofsted, and we continue to work together on it. We are also supporting teachers to build their confidence in teaching this newly required subject, which my right hon. Friend has campaigned for strenuously.

Stuart McDonald: With much more school work being carried out online and with digital literacy among pupils rising extremely quickly, what protections are the Government putting in place to ensure that online platforms are a safe learning environment for young people?

Robin Walker: This is an important area of work within both the computing curriculum and the advice on keeping children safe in education. We certainly want to ensure that children are safe whether they are learning in the classroom or online.

Low-quality University Courses

Danny Kruger: What steps his Department is taking to tackle the provision of low-quality university courses.

Michelle Donelan: I believe that every student has the right to a high-quality education. The Government are committed to tackling low-quality courses and ensuring that students and the taxpayer see a return on their investment. We have worked with the Office for Students to tackle low-quality higher education courses and it will now, for the first time, impose stringent minimum standards for drop-out rates and progression to graduate jobs.

Danny Kruger: Wiltshire has no university, as my right hon. Friend knows, but we have something better in the form of Wiltshire College, which provides a fantastic range of courses for young people and adults, including at the great agricultural campus at Lackham. Will she join me in congratulating Wiltshire College on its retention of students and the progression that they achieve? It does that by working with employers to design courses that work for the local economy. Does she encourage universities to learn from the college sector how it does that?

Michelle Donelan: I agree completely with my hon. Friend’s assessment of Wiltshire College. Like so many further education colleges, it works closely with local businesses to ensure that residents get the skills that local employers need. That is why the Government are investing in further education. We are providing investment to transform the Lackham campus into an agritech hub, with £1.2 million of capital funding for Wiltshire College, as well as £4 million for the delivery of T-levels to ensure that learners continue to have high-class learning facilities.

Matt Western: Parents and families are rightly proud of a child or family member who secures a place at our world-class universities, yet last week many will have seen the Minister belittle their courses and hard work. Her new proposal to fine universities if they do not meet universal thresholds  risks punishing universities with more disadvantaged, black and ethnic minority or mature students, who are more likely to take different routes through to higher education. Why is she putting barriers in the way of universities seeking to widen access to higher education?

Michelle Donelan: It is a shame that the hon. Member did not pay attention to the announcement we made. Is he actually saying that we should expect the dumbing down of some courses, because those who are disadvantaged do not deserve high quality? Is that really what the Opposition stand for? Let us not forget that many universities are excelling at supporting disadvantaged students to complete courses and go on to get graduate jobs—look at Sheffield Hallam, Nottingham Trent and Kingston. I believe that every student deserves a high-quality education, and so should the Opposition.

Siobhan Baillie: It is not just the quality of courses that the Department and my right hon. Friend are working on; it is also the experience of students. Will she give an update on what steps she is taking to ensure that universities stop using non-disclosure agreements to silence the victims of sexual abuse?

Michelle Donelan: Last week, I launched a pledge, working with the likes of Universities UK and Can’t Buy My Silence. It is very important that universities stop using non-disclosure agreements in respect of sexual assault, sexual abuse and harassment. They are morally inept and have no place on our campuses. I encourage every vice-chancellor to sign the pledge.

Student and Graduate Finance: Cost of Living

Marion Fellows: What recent assessment he has made of the adequacy of (a) student and (b) graduate finance in the context of the cost of living.

Patricia Gibson: What recent assessment he has made of the adequacy of (a) student and (b) graduate finance in the context of the cost of living.

Michelle Donelan: We have frozen maximum tuition fees for the fifth year in succession, saving a typical full-time student finishing a course in the 2022-23 academic year over £3,000 in fee loans for the three-year degree. Maximum grants and loans have increased by 3.1% for the current academic year, with a further 2.3% increase announced for the next academic year.

Marion Fellows: As a result of their extremely high tuition fees—the highest in the world—English students leave university with three or four times the amount of debt that Scots do. Freezing the loan repayment threshold—along with the national insurance hike and the high, rising costs of food—significantly affects young graduates. Why are the Government failing to support students and graduates during this cost of living crisis?

Michelle Donelan: As I said, this will be the fifth year in succession that maximum fees have been frozen, saving a full-time student finishing a course over £3,000. With median non-graduate salaries at £25,000, it is  right that we work to make the system sustainable and fair for the taxpayer, including those who do not choose to attend university, especially when only a quarter of those currently starting a course will actually fully repay their loan.

Patricia Gibson: Despite what the Minister said, the fact is that the Government have broken yet another promise that the student loan repayment threshold would be frozen. That means that, when student loan repayments are taken into consideration, together with the national insurance tax hike, graduates earning just over £27,000 a year will pay a marginal tax rate of an eye-watering 42.25%. Will the Minister explain to the House why she thinks that is fair?

Michelle Donelan: It is important that we strike a fair deal for students, graduates and the taxpayer. Only a quarter of those who take out a loan now will fully repay it, and as the hon. Member knows, the terms of these loans are very different from commercial loans. For instance, if someone loses their job or their salary reduces, their payments will change immediately.

David Evennett: Universities have a duty to provide students with value for money and they have undoubtedly been receiving a poorer education through remote learning. Does my right hon. Friend agree that, now that plan B measures have ended, every university should welcome back students to lecture halls, or provide refunds?

Michelle Donelan: I do agree. Online learning can be a great way to supplement and enhance learning, but let me be clear: it should not be used as a cost-cutting exercise and it should not be used to avoid utilising face-to-face provision. As the Secretary of State has outlined, we expect universities to be up-front and transparent about what students can expect, and I am personally calling vice-chancellors where we are concerned that this is not happening.

Barry Sheerman: Surely the ministerial team realise that student finance is in a terrible mess, with many students struggling to pay money back and many students refused a mortgage because of their student debt. This is a serious situation. The Government have got to get a handle on it and do something about what is going on, particularly in relation to the weak and enfeebled Office for Students.

Michelle Donelan: Contrary to the hon. Member’s assertion, mortgages do not take into account student loans and we should put that on record. We are committed to a sustainable higher education funding model that supports high-quality provision, meets our skills gaps and maintains the world-class reputation of our higher education institutions, which is exactly why we will respond to the Augar review in full in due course.

Supporting Young People into High-quality Jobs

Robbie Moore: What steps his Department is taking to support young people into high quality jobs.

Michelle Donelan: We are increasing spending on skills by £3.8 billion over this Parliament—that includes growing apprenticeship funding to £2.7 billion by 2024-25—and our skills revolution will ensure that young people have the skills that they need to access high-quality jobs through skills bootcamps, T-levels, traineeships and apprenticeships.

Robbie Moore: The Government’s apprenticeship scheme has done a fantastic job in giving young people from across Keighley and Ilkley a route to high-skilled work. I saw that at first hand when I visited Byworth Boilers and met Suzanne Rutherford, Jago Harry and Curtis Daly, all of whom made that progression through the apprenticeship scheme. What plans does my right hon. Friend’s Department have to ensure that success stories such as the Byworth Boilers apprenticeship scheme are repeated all across the country?

Michelle Donelan: As so many companies, such as Byworth Boilers, are recognising the benefits of growing their own, there have been 130,000 apprenticeship starts in the first quarter of this academic year, up 43% on the same period last year and 3.5% higher than before the pandemic. Apprenticeships can be transformative, and I am sure that Suzanne Rutherford, Jago Harry and Curtis Daly will find that for themselves.

Toby Perkins: Apprenticeships are the best way to support young people into high-quality jobs, but Government data shows the total number of apprenticeships fell by almost a quarter from 2001 to 2019, even before the pandemic. The levy has been described by the Chartered Institute of Personnel and Development as having failed by every measure and that it shuts out small businesses and young people. Is the Minister really satisfied with this failure? Can she explain why no reforms to apprenticeships are proposed in the Skills and Post-16 Education Bill?

Michelle Donelan: Our high-quality apprenticeship do not just satisfy us; they satisfy the thousands of people undertaking them. There have been 130,000 apprenticeship starts in the first quarter of this academic year, which is up by 43% on the same period last year.

Gagan Mohindra: I am really proud of the many outstanding schools in my constituency, but it is important to remember that a degree is not the only route to a successful career. Does the Minister agree that apprenticeships are just as vital as university degrees, and will she arrange for the right Minister to meet me ahead of Apprenticeship Week, starting 7 February, to discuss what more can be done to promote apprenticeships?

Michelle Donelan: Both I and the Under-Secretary of State for Education, my hon. Friend the Member for Brentwood and Ongar (Alex Burghart), who is the Skills Minister, will be delighted to meet our hon. Friend. I absolutely agree with him on the importance of apprenticeships, and that is why we have just launched our new skills campaign, Get the Jump.

Daniel Zeichner: Does the Minister realise that many of the routes into quality jobs are in those very universities that she has been disparaging  through her tax on so-called low-value courses? Does she agree that we need a much better metric than salary outcomes? Just because someone is not very well paid does not mean that they are no value.

Michelle Donelan: It is a shame the Opposition did not read our announcement the other week. In fact, we have not based it on salaries; we have based it on graduate outcomes, so there is a range of jobs that people can progress into.

Freedom of Speech: University Campuses

Greg Smith: What steps his Department is taking to protect freedom of speech on university campuses.

Mark Logan: What steps his Department is taking to protect freedom of speech on university campuses.

Michelle Donelan: Freedom of speech is a fundamental principle of higher education and this Government will not allow the continued self-censorship of individuals facing negative repercussions for lawfully expressed views, which is why our Higher Education (Freedom of Speech) Bill will strengthen existing freedom of speech duties.

Greg Smith: The University of Buckingham in my constituency has twice topped the charts for the university with the least restrictions on free speech, and under the outstanding leadership of its vice-chancellor, Professor James Tooley, proposals have been drawn up calling for new laws to ensure that academics can sue an institution or use the complaints scheme if it fails to protect them from targeted campaigns of harassment related to their academic freedom. Will my right hon. Friend the Minister work with the University of Buckingham to make that new protection a reality?

Michelle Donelan: I welcome the University of Buckingham continuing to champion free speech. Our Bill contains exactly those sorts of measure to further strengthen protection for individuals who are being harassed for expressing their lawful views, and I am sure my hon. Friend will support it when it returns to this House.

Mark Logan: Will the Minister agree to visit my constituency to see the efforts of some of our schools, including Eden Boys School, which is a feeder school into the University of Bolton, to make sure we get the balance right between freedom of speech and respect for religious values?

Michelle Donelan: Of course I will be delighted to visit Bolton North East. Maintaining free speech in our universities and political impartiality in our schools while also respecting religious values is imperative, as tomorrow’s generation shape their views.

Lifelong Learning and Skills Development

Jane Stevenson: What steps his Department is taking to promote lifelong learning and skills development.

Alex Burghart: One absolute priority is to ensure that everyone can obtain the skills that they need at whatever time in life is right for them. That is why last week we launched our Skills for Life campaign, which will promote skills offers among adults, including our level 3 offer of apprenticeships and skills bootcamps.

Jane Stevenson: It was an enormous pleasure to welcome the employment Minister, my hon. Friend the Member for Mid Sussex (Mims Davies), to Wolverhampton last week, when we met jobseekers of many ages who were taking part in a “car maintenance for electric vehicles” course delivered by City of Wolverhampton College as part of the Department for Work and Pensions’ sector-based work academy programme or SWAP scheme. How can the Minister help providers like that college offer more courses of that kind, which are so valuable in helping people into work?

Alex Burghart: I commend the work that City of Wolverhampton College is doing on electric vehicle maintenance. When we see excellent providers working with employers, we also see the best outcomes for students, which is why we are investing an additional £3.8 billion in further education and skills over the current Parliament.

Dan Jarvis: The truly outstanding Northern College in Barnsley is the only adult residential college in the north of England. Can the Minister assure us that it will continue to receive its residential uplift funding in future years?

Alex Burghart: I should be delighted to look into that issue for the hon. Gentleman.

Technical Qualifications: Strengthening their Value

Simon Baynes: What steps his Department is taking to strengthen the value of technical qualifications.

Karen Buck: What estimate he has made of the number of students studying for (a) BTECs and (b) T-levels in the 2021-22 academic year.

Alex Burghart: We are reforming technical education to support progression and meet employer needs. Our initial figures show that nearly 5,500 new students started T-levels in September last year, more than four times the number who started in 2020. We do not routinely publish take-up data on individual qualifications such as Pearson BTECs, but we will publish in June the number of students who were studying for applied general qualifications at the end of 2021.

Simon Baynes: Will the Minister join me in congratulating my constituent Adele Hughes, who is working as an apprentice with Raytheon Technologies, on being awarded a bronze medal at the recent WorldSkills UK Competition, and does he agree that Adele’s remarkable achievement demonstrates the value of technical qualifications and apprenticeships?

Alex Burghart: I am delighted to extend the Department’s congratulations to Adele. What we are seeing through our apprenticeships programme at the moment is the study and achievement of world-class skills in England. That is why I hope my hon. Friend, and all other hon. Members, will join me next week in celebrating National Apprenticeships Week.

Karen Buck: More than a quarter of a million students are studying BTECs, but the Government are rushing ahead with a set of changes about which parents and schools and colleges are very concerned, especially as BTECs are taken up disproportionately by the most disadvantaged families in the most disadvantaged communities. One of the issues that have been raised with me is the limited number of opportunities and qualifications that will be available under T-levels, in comparison with BTECs. Can the Minister explain how a levelling-up agenda is being advanced by a reduction in the range of opportunities available to such students?

Alex Burghart: It was a central finding of the Sainsbury review, led by a Labour peer, that the vocational qualifications system should be simplified. What we are doing is creating world-class gold-standard qualifications that will give students meaningful work placements that will enable them to acquire qualifications designed by employers to give them the skills that the economy needs.

Richard Holden: Apprenticeships and technical qualifications are extremely important to my constituents. Following the success of my jobs fair last year, I am organising an apprenticeships fair on 11 February this year. Will the Minister agree to open the fair, or to come along at some point during the day and support those young people in my constituency who are looking for an alternative route into work?

Alex Burghart: I will see my hon. Friend there.

Covid-19: Transmission in Schools

Bill Esterson: What steps he is taking to help prevent covid-19 transmission in schools.

Robin Walker: As I mentioned to my hon. Friend the Member for Harrow East (Bob Blackman), the Government continue to support a number of proportionate measures to reduce the spread of covid-19, testing regularly across settings, delivering 353,000 carbon dioxide monitors and up to 9,000 air cleaning units to ensure adequate ventilation, and committing a further £8 million to support the in-school vaccination programme. All that helps to protect face-to-face education.

Bill Esterson: The Scientific Advisory Group for Emergencies advised the Government to improve ventilation in schools in May 2020. It warned the Government to prepare for winter in July 2020. More than 10 million days of in-person teaching were lost last term. More than 400,000 children were out of school with covid last week. A quarter of schools faced teacher absences of 15% or more. Air cleaning devices are more than 18 months late, and are being offered to fewer than one in 30 classrooms. Why did Ministers ignore the advice about the importance of ventilation in schools for so long?

Robin Walker: The Government have consistently guided that ventilation is an important part of the measures against covid. We have had a world-leading programme of rolling out CO2 monitors so that we can identify the classrooms that need extra support in this respect. Roughly 3% of classrooms came back as needing the extra support and the Secretary of State confirmed last week that every school that meets the criteria and that has applied for that will get it, paid for by the Department for Education. This is a successful response to ensure that schools have the support that they need.

Stephen Morgan: Vaccination is key to protecting our children’s learning in the classroom, yet 46% of 12 to 15-year-olds have still not had their first dose. One in eight children were off school earlier this month, causing more avoidable disruption to their education. Ministers missed their own target to offer every child a vaccine by October half term, so can the Minister tell the House what his vaccination target is now, and when he expects to meet it?

Robin Walker: As the hon. Gentleman will recognise, vaccines have never been compulsory for children. We want children to have vaccines, but they are optional and something that requires consent. We are continuing to support the vaccine programme, and the Secretary of State announced last week that we have accepted £8 million from NHS England to accelerate that in the schools pillar. The community pillar continues to be available to children in this age group.

Future Funding

Christine Jardine: What recent discussions he has had with the Chancellor of the Exchequer on future funding for education.

Michelle Donelan: At the spending review, the Government set out spending plans for the Department for Education worth more than £86 billion for 2024-25. This is an £18.4 billion cash increase over the Parliament, showing that this Government are serious about skills, schools and families across the country.

Christine Jardine: I associate myself with the remarks made by the Minister for School Standards, the hon. Member for Worcester (Mr Walker) about the late Member for Birmingham, Erdington.
We now know that £2.7 billion was spent on personal protective equipment that cannot be used, and that £4.3 billion of the money that was stolen during covid through the furlough scheme and other schemes is being written off by Her Majesty’s Revenue and Customs. Does the Minister share my concern about the difference that that cash could have made in meeting the target of more than £15 billion that the Government’s own tsar reckoned was needed to catch up on the days that our children have lost in school? Will she call for a review of this?

Michelle Donelan: This Government are investing £4 billion extra on schools next year and £5 billion for recovery. This Government prioritise the skills of the future and the catch-up of children in schools.

John Hayes: Will the Minister, mindful of what she has just said, investigate how much local authorities are spending on so-called anti-racist education, which is based on deceit, spreads dismay and causes division? She will know that this is happening in Brighton and elsewhere. Will she therefore meet Don’t Divide Us—parents and teachers who are highlighting these matters—with a view to issuing guidance and if necessary taking legislative steps to prevent this kind of indoctrination?

Michelle Donelan: I know that the Minister for School Standards, my hon. Friend the Member for Worcester (Mr Walker), will be only too happy to meet my right hon. Friend. It is important that I remind the House that schools are subject to political impartiality, and guidance on this will be updated shortly.

Helen Hayes: Taxpayer-subsidised childcare is increasingly being taken over by large for-profit companies quartered overseas, according to new research by University College London and the Nuffield Foundation. These companies have growing debts and charge high fees to parents while having among the lowest levels of staff qualifications and pay. They are reinvesting little in childcare provision. Does the Minister believe that repaying corporate debt represents value for money for taxpayers while families across the country struggle to access childcare that they can afford?

Michelle Donelan: We are investing additional funding for the entitlements worth £160 million in 2022-23. I know that the Minister for Children and Families, the Under-Secretary of State for Education, my hon. Friend the Member for Colchester (Will Quince), will be only too happy to meet the hon. Member to discuss this in detail.

Carol Monaghan: Full membership of Horizon Europe continues to be treated as a negotiating pawn by this Government, but it is a very important source of higher education funding. When the Government talk of funding safety nets, they fail to recognise the importance of the rich collaborations that result from Horizon. When will this Government stop faffing about and make a concrete decision on the UK’s full participation in Horizon Europe?

Michelle Donelan: We recognise that the ongoing delays by the EU have led to uncertainty for researchers, businesses and innovators. We have made it very clear that, in the event the UK is unable to associate with Horizon Europe, the funding that has been put aside will go to the UK Government’s research and development programmes, including those that would form partnerships internationally.

Forced Marriage and Child Marriage:  Information in Schools

Pauline Latham: What steps he is taking to provide information in schools for at-risk children on forced marriage and child marriage.

Will Quince: The “Keeping children safe in education” statutory guidance provides a strong safeguarding framework for schools. It sets out the role that all school staff have to play in safeguarding children, including information for staff on what forced marriage actually is, as well as signposting to further help from the Government’s forced marriage unit.

Pauline Latham: My private Member’s Bill, the Marriage and Civil Partnership (Minimum Age) Bill, has its Third Reading on 25 February. We are approaching a crucial time for young people at risk of child marriage. Many child marriages happen when children are taken abroad, generally in the summer holidays and often to someone they have never met. Will the Minister meet me to discuss how we can raise awareness of this issue in schools so that children know they can speak out if their parents or other relatives intend to take them abroad to be married in the school holidays and so that teachers know how to report children they consider to be at risk?

Will Quince: “Keeping children safe in education” is clear that all school and college staff should offer early help to children at risk of forced marriage or who are missing from education. It also signposts to detailed information developed by the forced marriage unit that outlines how schools and colleges should handle any concerns relating to forced marriage. My hon. Friend has campaigned long and hard on this issue, and of course I would be very happy to meet her.

The Reading Framework

Nick Gibb: If he will make an assessment of the effect of his Department’s July 2021 policy paper, “The Reading Framework”, on the quality of the teaching of reading in primary schools.

Robin Walker: I pay tribute to my right hon. Friend for his immense work on “The Reading Framework”. The resulting framework is a vital and evidence-based tool to enable schools to teach reading effectively. It shows that phonics is just one part of becoming a fluent reader. Teachers should also focus on speaking and reading stories to foster a love of reading. English hubs tell us that the framework has been well received, and they are delivering a series of well-attended webinars to support schools to implement its recommendations.

Nick Gibb: I am sure my hon. Friend will have seen the recent report by two education academics challenging the Government’s focus on phonics, despite all the evidence of its success in teaching children to read. Does he agree on the importance of continuing to make the case for phonics and the importance of the Government’s clear focus on the curriculum, and on how it is taught, in helping us to complete our mission to transform the life chances of every child in this country?

Robin Walker: To coin a phrase, I agree with Nick. The evidence for phonics is very secure, and robust studies led by the Education Endowment Foundation show that phonics is extremely effective in teaching students to decode words. Schools do not teach phonics in isolation, and it is just one element of becoming a more  fluent reader. Teachers must also focus on other elements of developing a passion for reading. My right hon. Friend is right that the evidence is very clear and that we should continue to follow it.

Children with SEND: Access to Specialist Support

Vicky Foxcroft: What recent assessment he has made of the adequacy of access to specialist support for children with special educational needs and disabilities.

Will Quince: We are conducting a review of the special educational needs and disability system. We intend to publish proposals for improvements to the system through a Green Paper for full public consultation in the first three months of this year.

Vicky Foxcroft: The National Autistic Society ran a survey of parents and carers last summer, and it found that a quarter of parents waited more than three years to receive support for their child. Urgent reforms are needed for the 160,000 autistic pupils in schools in England to address the issues that have only been exacerbated by the pandemic. Can the Minister confirm that the upcoming SEND review will include robust proposals to tackle the crisis that disabled children and their families are facing?

Will Quince: I recognise some of the challenges the hon. Lady faces, and I give her that commitment. We prioritise children and young people with SEND and their families in our £4.9 billion education recovery plan, and those with the most complex needs continue to receive high-needs funding, which increases to £9.1 billion in the next financial year. We have allocated £42 million this financial year to fund projects that support children and young people with SEND, including £600,000 to the Autism Education Trust.

Anthony Mangnall: As lockdown has been scaled down, I have been visiting primary and secondary schools to talk about mental health. What steps have been taken to improve mental health access facilities, including counsellors in all schools?

Will Quince: Backed by £9.5 million, we are offering about a third of schools and colleges in England a grant this year to train a senior mental health lead in their setting. Our £15 million wellbeing for education recovery and return programmes are in addition to the £79 million boost to children and young people’s mental health announced in March 2021 for mental health support teams in schools and colleges. My hon. Friend’s point is well made.

Kim Leadbeater: Last week, I met a fantastic local ADHD—attention deficit hyperactivity disorder—support group, who detailed to me the many delays that children are facing in receiving diagnoses and then education, health and care plans, support and treatment. What steps are the Government taking to support pupils with ADHD and suspected ADHD so that they can learn effectively and have a fulfilling educational experience?

Will Quince: The SEND review is all about ensuring that pupils get the right support, in the right place, at the right time and ultimately have better outcomes, and I would be very happy to meet the hon. Lady to discuss the issue further.

Matthew Hancock: The Minister will be aware that four out of five dyslexic children leave school with their dyslexia unidentified, so will he ensure that, consistent with the answer just given by the Minister for School Standards, the upcoming schools White Paper includes action on the universal screening and teacher training that our dyslexic pupils need and deserve?

Will Quince: My right hon. Friend is a strong advocate on these issues. The SEND review and the schools White Paper will, naturally, have to go hand in glove. The School Standards Minister and I would be happy to meet my right hon. Friend to discuss this further.

School Staff Absences

Rebecca Long-Bailey: What assessment he has made of the adequacy of Government support to help tackle staff absences in schools.

Robin Walker: The Department has extended the covid workforce fund to at least the February half-term, so that schools with high absence and financial pressures can continue to access these additional funds. Other measures include asking former teachers to come forward if they are available to temporarily fill absences in schools during the spring term.

Rebecca Long-Bailey: On 20 January, more than 415,000 pupils were off school and 15% of teachers were absent, but only 9,000 air purifiers have been promised, for approximately 300,000 classrooms. The Minister lauds the Government response, yet Germany has promised to subsidise 80% of the cost of air cleaning equipment in all schools to ensure that education is not disrupted. Why is he failing to ensure that our pupils have similar levels of protection?

Robin Walker: Very simply, because we are taking an evidence-based approach. We have listened to schools and we sent them the carbon dioxide monitors so that they can monitor where classrooms need the extra support. About 3% of classrooms needed that extra support and they are the ones where the devices are being provided entirely funded by the Department.

Apprenticeships: Early Years Workforce

Andrea Leadsom: What plans he has to develop apprenticeship routes for the early years workforce.

Alex Burghart: My Department has engaged with early years employers to help them design three high-quality apprenticeships—early years educator; practitioner and lead practitioner. Since 2018-19, there have been more than 26,000 starts on early years apprenticeships. Students can also study a T-level, a new gold-standard technical qualification in education and childcare, which provides a route into either work or further study.

Andrea Leadsom: I am grateful to my hon. Friend for his commitment to making sure that every baby gets the best start to life. Does he agree that by creating more of a mixed-skill workforce we will be able to provide the continuity of care that every family wants when they have a new baby?

Alex Burghart: I pay tribute to my right hon. Friend’s considerable expertise and work in this area, and I agree with her on this, which is why we are investing £153 million in training early years staff to support learning and development, and £300 million to transform Start4Life and help family services. That £300 million is going to include funding for trials for an innovative workforce, and I look forward to talking to her about that.

School Buildings: West Dorset

Chris Loder: If he will take steps to ensure a high standard for school buildings in West Dorset.

Robin Walker: Ensuring that schools are well maintained and support effective education is a Government priority. We have allocated £11.3 billion since 2015 to improve school buildings, and Dorset Council received £2.9 million this financial year in school condition allocations. We are delivering rebuilding projects in West Dorset, and our school rebuilding programme will transform 500 schools over the next decade.

Chris Loder: Twenty-five years ago, I attended the Gryphon School in Sherborne and was schooled in temporary classrooms. I returned to the school only a few months ago, to find the same temporary classrooms, in a terrible state, being used for students today. I am making limited progress with my hon. Friend’s Department, so might he offer further support so that we can get the situation sorted out?

Robin Walker: My hon. Friend is right to speak up for his old school. I am concerned to hear of the issues there. I understand that he met my noble Friend the Minister for the School System and senior officials. We have been engaging with the Sherborne Area Schools’ Trust on this matter and it has received £585,000 this financial year to improve its school buildings, but I would of course be happy to meet my hon. Friend again.

Early Years Healthy Development Review Report

Andrew Lewer: What steps he is taking to implement the recommendations of the Government’s Early Years Healthy Development Review Report, published in March 2021.

Will Quince: The Government are investing £300,000 million to transform “start for life” and family help services in half the council areas across England. That money will fund a network of family hubs, parent-infant mental health support, breastfeeding services and parenting programmes, and will allow local areas to publish their “start for life” offer.

Andrew Lewer: I thank the Minister for that support, but Camrose early years centre in Northampton South faces an emergency cut that will end its 8 am to 6 pm nursery service by 1 April this year. Will he meet me to discuss alternative solutions?

Will Quince: Like other maintained nursery schools, Camrose supports some of our most disadvantaged children. We have confirmed the continuation of its supplementary funding throughout the spending review period and will increase the supplementary hourly funding rate by 3.5%. I would of course be happy to meet my hon. Friend.

Topical Questions

Rachel Hopkins: If he will make a statement on his departmental responsibilities.

Michelle Donelan: As was explained to the House earlier, the Secretary of State is currently isolating, but on behalf of him, myself and the Department, I thank the staff and young people and their families across education and childcare for their perseverance and dedication. Face coverings are no longer recommended in schools, colleges or universities. Regular testing, vaccinations and enhanced ventilation continue to help to reduce transmission and thereby protect face-to-face education, which is our No. 1 priority.
The Government will spend another £8 million to support the crucial in-school vaccination programme. After the delivery of more than 353,000 carbon dioxide monitors, we are following the evidence and delivering up to 9,000 air-cleaning devices to fulfil all eligible applications where there is less natural ventilation. Because this Government have got the big calls right, 99% of children are back in school and learning face to face.

Rachel Hopkins: The most deprived schools have seen the largest cuts over the past decade, with a 14% real-terms fall in per-pupil spending between 2009-10 and 2019-20, compared with a drop of only 9% for the least deprived schools. That is not levelling up. Is the Minister content that her Government are funnelling money away from the schools and communities that need it the most?

Michelle Donelan: As the hon. Member knows, this Government are determined to level up, which is exactly why we have introduced a real-terms 5% increase in school funding and have the highest ever level of pupil premium.

John Penrose: The Secretary of State is sadly unable to be with us today, but will one of his Ministers commit him to meet me to discuss the universal accreditation scheme proposed in my recently published “Poverty Trapped” paper? It would mean that universities and colleges could give credit for knowledge and skills gained not just in formal education but in work or informal settings, to make it easier, cheaper and faster to switch careers and to level up opportunities so that everyone has a better chance to succeed.

Alex Burghart: I congratulate my hon. Friend on his report. I very much share his sentiments about the importance of recognising prior learning. Currently, further education providers can use their own discretion when they assess learners’ experience, but we are examining how we can encourage the greater use of knowledge in respect of prior learning. I shall pass on my hon. Friend’s invitation to the Secretary of State.

Bridget Phillipson: Today, I send my love to the family of Jack Dromey, who will be deeply missed by us all. Through you, Mr Speaker, I also send to the Secretary of State my best wishes for a swift recovery.
According to the most recent figures, the number of children who are out of school because of covid has risen by 34%. In the light of that, do Ministers not regret all the time and energy they have wasted on defending the Prime Minister rather than prioritising our children’s learning?

Robin Walker: The hon. Lady may wish to play party politics, but we are focused on making sure that children can safely learn in schools.

Bridget Phillipson: If only that were true. It is a year this week since the Prime Minister appointed Sir Kevan Collins
“to oversee a comprehensive programme of catch-up”,
only for Sir Kevan later to resign in protest because, in his words, the Government’s plans risked
“failing hundreds of thousands of pupils.”
We can all see covid’s impact on children’s learning and wellbeing. Labour’s “Children’s Recovery Plan” meets the scale of the challenge we face, so when will the Minister finally put children first and match Labour’s ambition for their future?

Robin Walker: I am delighted that this Government are investing £5 billion in education recovery, and that we have a Prime Minister who two years ago delivered on  a key manifesto promise to take this country out of theusb EU.

Steve Brine: The main issue in schools across Hampshire at the moment is SEND provision. There is a major increase in need as more students obtain their education, health and care plans, but a significant shortfall in personnel, even though the funding is in place. Will the Minister meet me and Steve Jones of Perins School, which is in my constituency—the dreaded Zoom is absolutely fine—so that we can talk about recruitment not only of teachers, but of student-facing support staff?

Will Quince: Let me take this opportunity to thank all those who work in mainstream and specialist SEND settings for everything that they do. Schools have the freedom to recruit support staff to match their circumstances, and last year they recruited 6,000 more. Of course, I will be happy to meet my hon. Friend to discuss the issue further.

Carol Monaghan: Times Higher Education has reported that several UK universities are providing Afghan Chevening scholars with considerable financial assistance, from food vouchers to laptops. Although that is to be commended, it is shocking that the financial contribution of the UK is not covering what these students need. What discussions has the Minister had with colleagues in the Foreign, Commonwealth and Development Office to increase the financial contribution and to properly support these Afghan students?

Michelle Donelan: I welcome the contribution that universities are also making to Afghan refugees. I will meet the hon. Member to detail exactly what the Government have done to support those studying here.

Richard Fuller: Will the Minister join me in thanking the headteacher and staff of Ivel Valley School in my constituency? They are in discussions regarding a much-needed refurbishment. Will the Minister advise me on what the Government’s plan is for upgrading the estate of schools that deal with children who have severe learning difficulties?

Will Quince: My hon. Friend and I recently visited an excellent alternative provision setting—the Academy of Central Bedfordshire—and he will know that we are investing an extra £2.6 billion between 2022 and 2025 to deliver an additional 30,000 places and to improve existing provision for children with SEND. Of course, I echo his thanks.

Karl Turner: Schools in east Hull have gone above and beyond to ensure that kids keep learning during the pandemic, and I thank each and every school leader, teacher and support staff member for that, but they have been badly let down by this Government. Last term, 10,600 school days were lost as a result of this Government’s failure. When will the Minister adopt the ambitious, comprehensive schools recovery plan put forward by the shadow Secretary of State, which will do what needs to be done?

Robin Walker: I thank the hon. Gentleman, but we have a strong plan for recovery in schools and a strong plan for attendance, which is vital. There has been unavoidable absence as a result of covid, but we must crack down on avoidable absence, which is a reason for one of my visits to the north-east last week.

Jonathan Gullis: We in Stoke-on-Trent are proud to be the home of Staffordshire University, but sadly it seems that cancel culture has arrived on our doorstep after the wokerati made formal complaints about criminology professor James Treadwell for tweeting that transgender women should not be allowed in women’s prisons, citing research that found that half of women in prison have experienced emotional, physical or sexual abuse. Does my right hon. Friend share my despair over this tiny extreme minority, who wish to silence anyone whose opinion they disagree with, and will she join me in lending support to Professor Treadwell?

Michelle Donelan: We are a Government who are committed to ensuring free speech on our campuses, which is exactly why we are honouring our manifesto commitment and bringing free speech legislation to the House. I point out that the University of Sussex is already being investigated by the Office for Students. Other universities should take note.

Vicky Foxcroft: Research published by the Social Market Foundation has shown that students from working-class backgrounds accepted into university are more likely than their peers to hold a BTEC qualification. After failing my GCSEs as a working-class 16-year-old, it was a BTEC in performing arts that got me back into education and ultimately into university. The Minister has already been asked this question by my hon. Friend the Member for Westminster North (Ms Buck), but does he agree that the decision to hastily remove BTEC funding makes a mockery of the Government’s claims to be levelling up in education?

Alex Burghart: The hon. Lady will have heard my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State extend the timescale for T-levels on Second Reading of the Skills and Post-16 Education Bill. I am sure that she would have benefited from being able to do a T-level when she was at school. It would have given her nine weeks of work placement, and she would have done a qualification designed with employers that would have led to a job in the economy.

Julian Lewis: Given that section 406(1)(b) of the Education Act 1996 already outlaws
“the promotion of partisan political views in the teaching of any subject in the school”,
will the Government take appropriate action without further delay against Brighton and Hove City Council, which is planning to indoctrinate seven-year-olds with critical race theory?

Robin Walker: My hon. Friend the Minister for Equalities has been clear that critical race theory should never be taught as that—it is a contentious political viewpoint. We are working on making sure that we update our guidance on political impartiality in school, to make that absolutely clear.

Chris Matheson: Upton-by-Chester High School in my constituency is rated good with an outstanding sixth form, but it keeps getting overlooked for replacement of its 1960s prefab buildings, which are falling apart. When will the Government announce the new guidelines, and will they look kindly on Upton High’s application?

Robin Walker: I know that the hon. Gentleman recently met my noble Friend the Minister for the School System to discuss the case for that school. Cheshire West and Chester Council received £4.6 million in school condition allocations this financial year. Our school rebuilding programme will deliver 500 projects over the next decade, transforming education for thousands of pupils. The hon. Gentleman has made his case once again.

Ben Bradley: I welcome the Government’s commitment to lifelong learning and level 3 qualifications, but my hon. Friend the Skills Minister will know that many residents across the country will need significant help with levels 1 and 2 in order to access that offer. Will he meet representatives of West Notts College and me to discuss how we might be able to offer that support to people in Mansfield?

Alex Burghart: I would be delighted to meet my hon. Friend. We are reforming level 2 qualifications. The Chancellor has announced our plans for Multiply, a new project to help people with numeracy of all ages.

Holly Lynch: Primary and secondary schools alike are telling me that the biggest challenge they face is covid-related staff absence. Anywhere between 15% and 20% of school staff are missing. Could the Minister confirm how many volunteers have signed up to the teacher volunteer drive? What are we doing to keep teachers in schools so that we can keep them safe?

Robin Walker: The Government’s covid guidance is about keeping both staff and pupils safe. On the hon. Lady’s point about volunteers, we published figures at the beginning of January that show that, at that point, responses from about a quarter of supply agencies showed that 585 teachers had come forward in answer to that call to arms. We expect the full number to be significantly higher.

Robert Largan: According to the latest Ofsted inspection ratings, only 55% of Derbyshire secondary schools are rated good or better, compared with a national benchmark of 80%. If levelling up is to mean anything, it must be about fixing the glaring educational inequality. Will the Minister agree to meet me and fellow Derbyshire MPs to discuss how we can improve education standards and opportunity for all in Derbyshire?

Robin Walker: I will certainly be happy to do that.

Neil Coyle: The chatty mums network of Bermondsey and Rotherhithe recently met me to raise concerns about the cost of living and lack of affordable childcare. What assessment have Ministers made of the impact of cuts to universal credit and the new Tory tax on working mums from April?

Will Quince: There is a substantial offer in place to support parents with childcare costs. In 2021, 328,700 children had a Government-funded early education entitlement place for 30 hours, worth up to £6,000.

Tim Loughton: Before Christmas, the Secretary of State made a statement about the tragic deaths of Arthur Labinjo-Hughes and  Star Hobson. To that grisly list has now been added Amina-Faye Johnson. He announced a review by the serious case review national panel. When will that review be published, and can the Minister assure us that it will be published in full and action will be taken?

Will Quince: The child safeguarding practice review panel will deliver a national independent review of Arthur and Star’s tragic deaths, to identify what we must learn, and it will report in May.

Emma Lewell-Buck: Last week, the journalist and presenter Ashley John-Baptiste shared his personal story in the BBC documentary “Split Up In Care—Life Without Siblings”. His story is not unusual, nor is it a past feature of our care system. Thousands of children removed from their families, alone and scared, are denied relationships with their siblings, despite all the evidence showing that this relationship and bond is one of the most significant and enduring. Why do this Government stubbornly refuse to make changes to the Children Act 1989 and give sibling contact for children in care?

Will Quince: The hon. Lady is right to raise this issue. We have the independent review into children’s social care led by Josh MacAlister, and I would be happy to meet her to discuss this important issue further.

Ben Spencer: I recently met my school leaders and heard how, in a recent inspection by Ofsted, no account had been taken of staff absence due to covid. Can my hon. Friend confirm that Ofsted should take into account covid impact when inspecting and set that out in writing?

Robin Walker: I can say to my hon. Friend that having discussed this matter with Her Majesty’s chief inspector, I know that she does take such impacts into account. Ofsted is offering deferrals to schools facing particularly high levels of staff absence, but I would be happy to meet my hon. Friend to discuss the case to which he refers.

Lindsay Hoyle: Before we move on to the first statement, I assure the House that following the comments made at the start of questions—[Interruption.] I do not think that is appropriate for what I am going to say. You ought to be ashamed. I assure the House that following the comments made at the start of questions, there will be an opportunity to pay tribute to our friend and colleague the late Jack Dromey. [Hon. Members: “Hear, hear.”] That will take place on Wednesday. I am sure that hon. and right hon. Members will welcome the opportunity to pay tribute at that point.
I should inform the House that given the brief period of time available to review the report, I will be allowing the Leaders of the Opposition parties a little longer to question the Prime Minister than is usually the case. I am sure the Prime Minister may wish to take a little longer at the beginning.

Sue Gray Report

Boris Johnson: With permission, Mr Speaker, I would like to make a statement. First, I express my deepest gratitude to Sue Gray and all the people who have contributed to this report, which I have placed in the Library of this House and which the Government have published in full today for everyone to read.
I will address the report’s findings in this statement, but first I want to say sorry. I am sorry for the things we simply did not get right and sorry for the way this matter has been handled. It is no use saying that this or that was within the rules, and it is no use saying that people were working hard—this pandemic was hard for everyone. We asked people across this country to make the most extraordinary sacrifices—not to meet loved ones, not to visit relatives before they died—and I understand the anger that people feel.
But it is not enough to say sorry. This is a moment when we must look at ourselves in the mirror, and we must learn. While the Metropolitan police must yet complete their investigation, and that means there are no details of specific events in Sue Gray’s report, I of course accept Sue Gray’s general findings in full, and above all her recommendation that we must learn from these events and act now.
With respect to the events under police investigation, she says:
“No conclusions should be drawn, or inferences made from this other than it is now for the police to consider the relevant material in relation to those incidents.”
More broadly, she finds:
“There is significant learning to be drawn from these events which must be addressed immediately across Government. This does not need to wait for the police investigations to be concluded.”
That is why we are making changes now to the way Downing Street and the Cabinet Office run, so that we can get on with the job—the job that I was elected to do, and the job that this Government were elected to do.
First, it is time to sort out what Sue Gray rightly calls the “fragmented and complicated” leadership structures of Downing Street, which she says
“have not evolved sufficiently to meet the demands”
of the expansion of No. 10. We will do that, including by creating an Office of the Prime Minister, with a permanent secretary to lead No. 10.
Secondly, it is clear from Sue Gray’s report that it is time not just to review the civil service and special adviser codes of conduct, wherever necessary, to ensure that they take account of Sue Gray’s recommendations, but to make sure that those codes are properly enforced. Thirdly, I will be saying more in the coming days about the steps we will take to improve the No. 10 operation and the work of the Cabinet Office, to strengthen Cabinet Government, and to improve the vital connection between No. 10 and Parliament.
Mr Speaker, I get it and I will fix it. I want to say to the people of this country: I know what the issue is. [Hon. Members: “No!”] Yes. [Hon. Members: “You!”] It is whether this Government can be trusted to deliver. And I say yes, we can be trusted—yes, we can be trusted to deliver. We said that we would get Brexit done, and we did. We are setting up freeports around the whole  United Kingdom. I have been to one of them today that is creating tens of thousands of new jobs. We said we would get this country through covid, and we did. We delivered the fastest vaccine roll-out in Europe and the fastest booster programme of any major economy, so that we have been able to restore people’s freedoms faster than any comparable economy. At the same time, we have been cutting crime by 14%, building 40 new hospitals and rolling out gigabit broadband, and delivering all the promises of our 2019 agenda, so that we have the fastest economic growth of the G7. We have shown that we have done things that people thought were impossible, and that we can deliver for the British people. [Interruption.] I remind those on the Opposition Benches that the reason we are coming out of covid so fast is partly because we doubled the speed of the booster roll-out.
I can tell the House and this country that we are going to bring the same energy and commitment to getting on with the job, to delivering for the British people, and to our mission to unite and level up across this country. I commend this statement to the House.

Keir Starmer: I would like to thank Sue Gray for the diligence and professionalism with which she has carried out her work. It is no fault of hers that she has only been able to produce an update today, not the full report.
The Prime Minister repeatedly assured the House that the guidance was followed and the rules were followed. But we now know that 12 cases have reached the threshold of criminal investigation, which I remind the House means that there is evidence of serious and flagrant breaches of lockdown, including the party on 20 May 2020, which we know the Prime Minister attended, and the party on 13 November 2020 in the Prime Minister’s flat. There can be no doubt that the Prime Minister himself is now subject to criminal investigation.
The Prime Minister must keep his promise to publish Sue Gray’s report in full when it is available. But it is already clear that the report discloses the most damning conclusion possible. Over the last two years, the British public have been asked to make the most heart-wrenching sacrifices—a collective trauma endured by all, enjoyed by none. Funerals have been missed, dying relatives have been unvisited. Every family has been marred by what we have been through. And revelations about the Prime Minister’s behaviour have forced us all to rethink and relive those darkest moments. Many have been overcome by rage, by grief and even by guilt. Guilt that because they stuck to the law, they did not see their parents one last time. Guilt that because they did not bend the rules, their children went months without seeing friends. Guilt that because they did as they were asked, they did not go and visit lonely relatives.
But people should not feel guilty. They should feel pride in themselves and their country, because by abiding by those rules they have saved the lives of people they will probably never meet. They have shown the deep public spirit and the love and respect for others that has always characterised this nation at its best.
Our national story about covid is one of a people who stood up when they were tested, but that will be forever tainted by the behaviour of this Conservative Prime Minister. By routinely breaking the rules he set,  the Prime Minister took us all for fools. He held people’s sacrifice in contempt. He showed himself unfit for office.
The Prime Minister’s desperate denials since he was exposed have only made matters worse. Rather than come clean, every step of the way, he has insulted the public’s intelligence. Now he has finally fallen back on his usual excuse: it is everybody’s fault but his. They go; he stays. Even now, he is hiding behind a police investigation into criminality in his home and his office.
The Prime Minister gleefully treats what should be a mark of shame as a welcome shield, but the British public are not fools. They never believed a word of it. They think that the Prime Minister should do the decent thing and resign. Of course, he will not, because he is a man without shame. Just as he has done throughout the life, he has damaged everyone and everything around him along the way. His colleagues have spent weeks defending the indefensible, touring the TV studios, parroting his absurd denials, degrading themselves and their offices, fraying the bond of trust between the Government—[Interruption.]

Lindsay Hoyle: Order. The hon. Member for South Ribble (Katherine Fletcher) is my neighbour. I expect better from my neighbours.

Keir Starmer: They have spent weeks fraying the bond of trust between the Government and the public, eroding our democracy and the rule of law.
Margaret Thatcher once said:
“The first duty of Government is to uphold the law. If it tries to bob and weave and duck around that duty when its inconvenient…then so will the governed”.
To govern this country is an honour, not a birthright. It is an act of service to the British people, not the keys to a court to parade to friends. It requires honesty, integrity and moral authority. I cannot tell hon. Members how many times people have said to me that this Prime Minister’s lack of integrity is somehow “priced in”—that his behaviour and character do not matter. I have never accepted that and I never will.
Whatever people’s politics, whatever party they vote for, honesty and decency matter. Our great democracy depends on them. Cherishing and nurturing British democracy is what it means to be patriotic. There are Conservative Members who know that, and they know that the Prime Minister is incapable of it. The question that they must now ask themselves is what they are going to do about it.
Conservative Members can heap their reputation, the reputation of their party, and the reputation of this country on the bonfire that is the Prime Minister’s leadership, or they can spare the country a Prime Minister totally unworthy of his responsibilities. It is their duty to do so. They know better than anyone how unsuitable he is for high office. Many of them knew in their hearts that we would inevitably come to this one day and they know that, as night follows day, continuing his leadership will mean further misconduct, cover-up and deceit. Only they can end this farce. The eyes of the country are upon them. They will be judged by the decisions they take now.

Boris Johnson: There is a reason why the right hon. and learned Gentleman said absolutely nothing about the report that was presented by the Government  and put in the Library of this House earlier today. That is because the report does absolutely nothing to substantiate the tissue of nonsense that he has just spoken—absolutely nothing. Instead, this Leader of the Opposition, a former Director of Public Prosecutions—although he spent most of his time prosecuting journalists and failing to prosecute Jimmy Savile, as far as I can make out—chose to use this moment continually to prejudge a police inquiry. That is what he chose to do. He has reached his conclusions about it. I am not going to reach any conclusions, and he would be entirely wrong to do so. I direct him again to what Sue Gray says in her report about the conclusions that can be drawn from her inquiry about what the police may or may not do. I have complete confidence in the police, and I hope that they will be allowed simply to get on with their job. I do not propose to offer any more commentary about it, and I do not believe that he should either.
I must say to the right hon. and learned Gentleman, with greatest respect to those on the Opposition Benches, that what I think the country wants us all in this House to focus on are the issues that matter to them and getting on with taking this country forward. Today, we have delivered yet more Brexit freedoms with a new freeport in Tilbury, as I said, when he voted 48 times to take this country back into the EU. We have the most open society, the most open economy—[Interruption.] This is I think what people want us to focus on. We have the most open society and the most open economy in Europe because of the vaccine roll-out, because of the booster roll-out, and never forget that he voted to keep us in the European Medicines Agency, which would have made that impossible. Today, we are standing together with our NATO allies against the potential aggression of Vladimir Putin, when he wanted, not so long ago, to install as Prime Minister a Labour leader who would actually have abolished NATO. That is what he believes in and those are his priorities. Well, I can say to him: he can continue with his political opportunism; we are going to get on and I am going to get on with the job.

Theresa May: The covid regulations imposed significant restrictions on the freedoms of members of the public. They had a right to expect their Prime Minister to have read the rules, to understand the meaning of the rules—and, indeed, those around them him to have done so, too—and to set an example in following those rules. What the Gray report does show is that No. 10 Downing Street was not observing the regulations they had imposed on members of the public, so either my right hon. Friend had not read the rules, or did not understand what they meant—and others around him—or they did not think the rules applied to No. 10. Which was it?

Boris Johnson: I would say, with great respect to my right hon. Friend—[Interruption.]

Lindsay Hoyle: Order. It is a very important question, and I want to hear the answer, even if other people do not.

Boris Johnson: No, that is not what the Gray report says. [Interruption.] It is not what the Gray report says, but I suggest that my right hon. Friend waits to see the conclusion of the inquiry.

Ian Blackford: Can I say that it is a pleasure to follow the former Prime Minister? Perhaps her behaviour in office, like that of many who went before her, was about dignity and about the importance of the office, of respect and of truthfulness, and the Prime Minister would be well advised to focus on those who have not dishonoured the office like he has done.
We stand here today faced with the systematic decimation of public trust in Government and the institutions of the state, and at its heart a Prime Minister—a Prime Minister—being investigated by the police. So here we have it: the long-awaited Sue Gray report—what a farce. It was carefully engineered to be a fact-finding exercise with no conclusions, and now we find it is a fact-finding exercise with no facts, so let us talk facts. The Prime Minister has told the House that
“all guidance was followed completely”—[Official Report, 1 December 2021; Vol. 704, c. 909.]
that “there was no party”, covid rules were followed, and
“I believed…this was a work event”.—[Official Report, 12 January 2022; Vol. 706, c. 562.]
Nobody—nobody—believed him then, and nobody believes you now, Prime Minister. That is the crux. No ifs, no buts; he has wilfully misled Parliament.

Lindsay Hoyle: Order. It would be acceptable to say “inadvertently misled the House”, but “misled the House” is not acceptable. The right hon. Member must withdraw that comment.

Ian Blackford: The Prime Minister inadvertently told the House on 8 December that no parties had taken place and then he had to admit that they had.
It is bad enough that the Prime Minister’s personal integrity is in the ditch, but this murky business is tainting everything around it. It is the Scottish National party’s intention to submit a motion instructing the Prime Minister to publish the Gray report in full. Will the Prime Minister obey an instruction by this House to publish as required?
Amid allegations of blackmail by Tory Whips, Tory Members have been defending the indefensible. We were told, “Wait for the report.” Well, here it is, and it tells us very little—except it does state that
“There were failures of leadership and judgment by different parts of No. 10”
and that
“Some…events should not have been allowed to take place.”
That is the Prime Minister’s responsibility. If there was any honour in public life, he would resign. Where is—[Laughter.] The Prime Minister laughs. We ought to remind ourselves in this House that 150,000-plus of our citizens have lost their lives and family members could not be with them. That is a sight that people will remember: a Prime Minister laughing at our public. I extend the hand of friendship to all those who have sacrificed. I certainly do not extend the hand of friendship to the Prime Minister, who is no friend of mine.
Where is the shame? Where is the dignity? Meanwhile, the police investigation will drag on and on. Every moment the Prime Minister stays, trust in Government and the rule of law is ebbing away. With the litany of rule breaking, the culture of contempt and the utter  disdain for the anguish felt by the public who have sacrificed so much, what the public see is a man who has debased the office of Prime Minister, shirked responsibility, dodged accountability and blamed his staff at every turn, presided over sleaze and corruption and tainted the very institutions of the state. In short—[Laughter.] Government Members can laugh, but the public know that this is a man they can no longer trust. He is being investigated by the police. He misled the House. He must now resign.

Lindsay Hoyle: Order. The right hon. Member will have to withdraw that last comment.

Ian Blackford: Mr Speaker, I gave the evidence of 8 December.

Lindsay Hoyle: Order. You will have to withdraw “misled”.

Ian Blackford: Mr Speaker, the Prime Minister has misled the House.

Lindsay Hoyle: Order. Unless you withdraw, I will have to stop, and that is not good. Just withdraw the words.

Ian Blackford: I am standing up for my constituents who know that this Prime Minister has lied and misled the House.

Lindsay Hoyle: Order. I will give you, as leader of the SNP, one more chance to say “inadvertently misled.” I do not want to have to throw you out, so I will give you this chance. Please.

Ian Blackford: I will speak truth to power. That man has misled the House.

Lindsay Hoyle: Order. I am sorry that it has come to this, and I am sorry that the leader of the party has not got the decency just to withdraw those words in order that this debate can be represented by all political leaders. Would you like to say “inadvertently”?

Ian Blackford: Mr Speaker, if the Prime Minister has inadvertently misled the House, I will state that.

Lindsay Hoyle: Right. We will leave it at that.

Boris Johnson: I am grateful to the right hon. Gentleman for withdrawing what he just said, because he was wrong, and I am afraid that he is wrong in his analysis. I apologise, as I have said, for all the suffering that people have had throughout the pandemic and for the anger that people feel about what has taken place in No. 10 Downing Street. But I must tell the right hon. Gentleman that, for much of what he said, his best course is simply to wait for the inquiry to conclude.

Lindsay Hoyle: Can I just say: I take it that the right hon. Member has withdrawn his remark?

Ian Blackford: The Prime Minister may have inadvertently misled the House—[Interruption.]

Lindsay Hoyle: Order. To help me and to help the House, has the right hon. Gentleman withdrawn his earlier comment and replaced it with “inadvertently”?

Ian Blackford: Mr Speaker, it is not my fault if the Prime Minister cannot be trusted to tell the truth—[Interruption.]

Lindsay Hoyle: Order. Under the power given to me by Standing Order No. 43, I order the right hon. Member to withdraw immediately from the House—
An hon. Member: He has left anyway!

Lindsay Hoyle: It’s all right; we do not need to bother. Let us move on. I call Andrew Mitchell.

Andrew Mitchell: Does my right hon. Friend recall that ever since he joined the party’s candidates list 30 years ago, and until we got him into No. 10, he has enjoyed my full-throated support? But I am deeply concerned by these events, and very concerned indeed by some of the things he has said from that Dispatch Box, and has said to the British public and to our constituents. When he kindly invited me to see him 10 days ago, I told him that I thought he should think very carefully about what was now in the best interests of our country, and of the Conservative party. I have to tell him that he no longer enjoys my support.

Boris Johnson: I must respectfully tell my right hon. Friend, great though the admiration is that I have for him, that I simply think he is mistaken in his views, and I urge him to reconsider upon full consideration of the inquiry.

Angela Eagle: The Prime Minister told us:
“I have been repeatedly assured since these allegations emerged that there was no party and that no covid rules were broken.”—[Official Report, 8 December 2021; Vol. 705, c. 372.]
We now know that 12 of the 16 parties are subject to a police investigation, and that of the remaining four, the Sue Gray report states that she has seen a “serious failure” to observe the high standards at No. 10. She has seen “failures of leadership” and of judgment, yet the Prime Minister thinks that is fine. Just how bad do things have to be before he takes personal responsibility, does what everybody in the country wants him to do, and resigns?

Boris Johnson: What we are doing is taking the action that I have described to set up a Prime Minister’s department to improve the operation of No. 10. We will be taking further steps in the days ahead.

Graham Stuart: The inquiry has found that there have been serious failings, and it has suggested there be changes in the way that No. 10 is run. There is a real opportunity now to take forward this new Office of the Prime Minister, and ensure that further improvements are made so that we can carry on delivering. What the Opposition parties hate is the fact that this Government will carry on delivering on the things that matter most to people, while also making sure that the governance within No. 10 is improved.

Boris Johnson: I thank my hon. Friend very much. I think he is completely right. The Opposition, of course, want to keep their focus trained on this. That is their decision. I think that what people in this country  want us to do is get on with the job that they want us to do. That is to serve them and, frankly, to stop talking about ourselves.

Edward Davey: There is no word in the English language for a parent who has lost a child. There is no equivalent of “widow” or “orphan” for that particular horror. It is a loss that is literally beyond words; a loss that hundreds and thousands of parents have tragically experienced during this pandemic. Many had to bury their children alone; many could not be there with them at the end. Meanwhile, No. 10 partied. Does the Prime Minister understand? Does he care about the enormous hurt his actions have caused to bereaved families across our country? Will he finally accept that the only decent thing he can do now is to resign?

Boris Johnson: I do care deeply about the hurt that is felt across the country about the suggestion that things were going on in No. 10 that were in contravention of the covid rules. I understand how deeply people feel about this and how angry they are. I have apologised several times, but I must say that I think we should wait for the outcome of the inquiry before jumping to the conclusions that the right hon. Gentleman has raised. In the meantime, we should focus on the issues that matter to the British people.

Caroline Nokes: The public and this House have been frustrated by having to wait for Sue Gray and the Metropolitan police, and today the Prime Minister has announced his new office at No. 10. Will he please let the House know what specific structures will be put in place so that this House can hold it accountable?

Boris Johnson: We will make sure that there is a new permanent secretary, who will be accountable to me, and that the codes of conduct that apply both to special advisers and to civil servants are properly enforced. Of course, all of that will be properly communicated to the House. What I want to see is much better communication and links between No. 10 and the entirety of the House of Commons, and we will do that.

George Howarth: Yesterday, at the local Tesco store in my constituency, a constituent asked me in a tone more in sorrow than in anger, “Why doesn’t the Prime Minister realise that as every day goes by, he damages the reputation of our country abroad, around the world?” How would the Prime Minister respond to that constituent?

Boris Johnson: I think that the reputation of our country around the world is built on the fastest vaccine roll-out in Europe, if not in all the major economies; it is built on having, therefore, the fastest growth in the G7; and it is built on our ability to bring our allies together to stand up against Vladimir Putin. That is what the world is focused on, that is what I am focused on, and that, frankly, is what the right hon. Gentleman should be focused on.

Bernard Jenkin: Will my right hon. Friend first of all remind the Leader of the Opposition and the Labour party that the Back  Benchers of the Conservative party need no reminders about how to dispose of a failing leader? Will he also, when he is restructuring No. 10, concentrate on the fact that the country wants results? We cannot see the point of such a large No. 10 superstructure; it needs to be slimmed down and streamlined. May I commend his determination to restore Cabinet government? It is on results, over the next few months, that he will be judged.

Boris Johnson: I thank my hon. Friend very much; I think he is entirely right. I am more than content to be judged on the results we have already delivered and the results that we will deliver. I am sure that we will be greatly assisted by the reforms of No. 10 that I have outlined.

Diane Abbott: Anybody who has actually read the Sue Gray report can only wonder what she was made to leave out. Will the Prime Minister give the House an undertaking that as soon as he is able, he will release the full unredacted report to this House?

Boris Johnson: Sue Gray has published everything that she can. I propose that we wait until the conclusion of the inquiry. In the meantime, I think it peculiar that the report is being simultaneously hailed as utterly damning and condemned for not having enough in it—it cannot be both.

Michael Fabricant: President Truman had on his desk, “The buck stops here”, so the Prime Minister was right to apologise for the events that happened in No. 10 Downing Street. Two weeks ago, I reminded Tom Harwood that Tony Blair suggested that there should be an Office of the Prime Minister, so that it could be governed not from 70 Whitehall but from the building itself. Will the Prime Minister tell me how he envisions the office working? Will the permanent secretary be based in No. 10, controlling what civil servants do in No. 10?

Boris Johnson: I am grateful to my hon. Friend. I think the House understands, even if many people outside do not, that No. 10 hosts more than 400 officials on a busy day. They have a huge amount to do —[Interruption.] No, they are working very hard. We need to make sure there are proper lines of authority and that we sort out the command structures, and that is what we are doing.

Hywel Williams: Whatever the police decide, this update, severely limited as it is, would be enough to persuade any other Prime Minister to resign. This Prime Minister could resign and salvage a crumb or two of honour, or he may try to delay and take his party down with him. Is it not clear that, with notable exceptions, his Back Benchers should discover their backbone and sack him?

Boris Johnson: I have answered several questions like that. I must ask the hon. Gentleman to look at the report properly and to wait for the inquiry when it comes.

Mark Harper: We have been asked to keep some sense of perspective, and I think that is right. The question here is whether those who make the law obey the law—that is pretty fundamental. Many, including some of my constituents, have questioned the Prime Minister’s honesty, integrity and fitness to hold that office. In judging him, he rightly asked us to wait for all the facts. Sue Gray has made it clear in her update that she could not produce a meaningful report with the facts, so may I ask the Prime Minister the question that the right hon. Member for Hackney North and Stoke Newington (Ms Abbott) asked, and to which he did not give an answer? When Sue Gray produces all the facts in her full report after the police investigation, will the Prime Minister commit to publishing it immediately and in full?

Boris Johnson: What we have to do is wait for the police to conclude their inquiries. That is the proper thing to do. People have given all sorts of evidence in the expectation that it would not necessarily be published. At that stage, I will take a decision about what to publish.

Jess Phillips: I imagine I am going to be asked to wait for something else, but was the Prime Minister present at the event in his flat on 13 November? I assume he does not need other people to tell him whether he was there. Was he at the flat event on 13 November listed in the report?

Boris Johnson: I am very grateful to the hon. Lady for inviting me to comment on something that is being investigated. With great respect to her, I simply will not indulge in running commentary. She will have to wait.

Robert Buckland: Saying sorry is very important, but my right hon. Friend will be judged by the deeds he undertakes as a result. I heard today a proper acknowledgment that he needs to look in the mirror, and I am glad to hear about reforms to the centre of Government that I think are overdue, as he knows from our previous conversations. Will he give me and the House an undertaking today that, in co-operating with the Metropolitan police inquiry, he will show the appropriate tone and approach that I think the British public demand of him as a person of serious purpose who is up to the level of the events? That is what we expect from him now, and that is what I will be expecting him to do.

Boris Johnson: I thank my right hon. and learned Friend. I stress that I have great admiration for and full confidence in the Metropolitan police. I suggest that they now be allowed to get on with their job.

Karl Turner: We now know that there is a criminal investigation into the party that took place on 13 November 2020 in the Prime Minister’s flat to celebrate the exit of Mr Cummings. On 8 December last year, the Prime Minister came to that Dispatch Box and flatly denied the very idea that any such party had taken place—[Interruption.] He is shaking his head. In answer to my hon. Friend the Member for Hornsey and Wood Green (Catherine West), he said that it had not happened. He has inadvertently misled the House, so the very least he should do is get to that Dispatch Box and correct the record.

Boris Johnson: No. I stand by what I said, and I would simply urge the hon. Member to wait for the outcome of the inquiry. That is what he needs to do.

Julian Lewis: May I advise my right hon. Friend publicly what I have said to emissaries from his campaign team privately? It is truly in his interest, in the Government’s interest and in the national interest that he should insist on receiving the full, unredacted report immediately, as I believe he can, and that he should then publish the uncensored version without any further delay.

Boris Johnson: I am very grateful to my right hon. Friend, but I think extensive legal advice has been taken on this point and Sue Gray has published everything that she thinks she can that is consistent with that advice.

Joanna Cherry: If the police investigation were to result in serious criminal charges necessitating a criminal trial such as, I don’t know, misconduct in public office or conspiracy to pervert the course of justice, how would the Prime Minister feel about having to give evidence on oath?

Boris Johnson: I am not going to speculate about hypothetical questions which, frankly, I reject.

Mark Pritchard: You will know, Mr Speaker, that it is a very rare event for any Prime Minister to come to this House and apologise—it is a difficult thing for any Prime Minister to do—but on the issue of the police investigation, does my right hon. Friend agree that there should be due process, free and unfettered access to all at No. 10 and, most of all, no prejudging or undermining of the police inquiry before it has concluded?

Boris Johnson: Yes, I completely agree, and I must say that I am shocked by some of the commentary that I have heard from the Benches opposite about that matter today.

Chris Bryant: The thing is, this is who the Prime Minister is:
“a serious failure to observe…high standards…failures of leadership and judgment…excessive consumption of alcohol…in a professional workplace”.
“gatherings” that “should not have been” able “to take place”; staff too frightened to raise concerns; parties in his own private flat. A leopard does not change its spots, does it? Every single one who defends this will face this again and again and again, because he still will not even admit to the House that when he came to us and said, of 13 November, that
“the guidance…and the rules were followed at all times”—[Official Report, 8 December 2021; Vol. 705, c. 379]—
and, on 1 December, that all the guidelines were observed, those things simply were not true. If he will not correct the record today, there is nothing accidental about this, is there? It is deliberate.

Boris Johnson: I do not know what the hon. Gentleman is trying to say, but I direct him again to the point made by Sue Gray:
“No conclusions should be drawn, or inferences made from this other than it is now”
time
“for the police to consider the relevant material”.
That is what the House should allow them, frankly, to do.

Shailesh Vara: It is absolutely right that over the past few weeks constituents of Members on both sides of the House have been writing to us about this hugely important issue, and I do not wish in any way to minimise its importance, but there are military bases in my constituency, and I am receiving emails from families who are concerned about their loved ones and the potential role that they may end up playing given the conflict on the Russia-Ukraine border. Opposition Members may treat this lightly, but the families of those serving in the military do not treat it lightly. Will my right hon. Friend give me an assurance that, notwithstanding the importance of the issue we are discussing at present, his Government will start to address other important matters that concern my constituents and those of Members throughout the House?

Boris Johnson: I thank my hon. Friend very much indeed. I think he is completely right. Of course these matters are important, and we have to wait for the inquiry, but in the meantime the UK must play the leading role that we are playing, in bringing the west together to form a united front against Vladimir Putin, in particular with the economic sanctions that we need. That is the priority of the Government right now.

Colum Eastwood: While the Prime Minister was eating birthday cake with his pals, people were standing outside nursing home windows looking in at their loved ones dying. Contrary to what the Prime Minister has said multiple times from that very Dispatch Box, any objective reading of Sue Gray’s update makes it absolutely clear that the rules were broken multiple times in Downing Street. Will the Prime Minister continue the habit of a lifetime and keep blaming everybody else, or will he finally stand up, take responsibility, and just go?

Boris Johnson: The hon. Gentleman really has to read the report. He has to look at the report, and he must wait—[Interruption.] Everything he has said is, I am afraid, not substantiated by the report. He should look at it, and wait for the police inquiry.

Steven Baker: Millions of people took seriously a communications campaign apparently designed by behavioural psychologists to bully, to shame and to terrify them into compliance with minute restrictions on their freedom. What is my right hon. Friend’s central message to those people who complied meticulously with all the rules and suffered terribly for it, including, I might say, those whose mental health will have suffered appallingly as a result of the messages that his Government were sending out?

Boris Johnson: I want to thank all those people for everything that they did, because together they helped us to control coronavirus. Thanks to their amazing actions in coming forward to be vaccinated, we are now  in a far better position than many other countries around the world, so I have a massive debt of gratitude to all the people whom my hon. Friend has described.

Diana R. Johnson: Further to the question asked by my hon. Friend the Member for Birmingham, Yardley (Jess Phillips), I am not asking for a running commentary, but I would like to know whether the Prime Minister was present in his flat at the event on 13 November 2020.

Boris Johnson: I am really grateful to the right hon. Lady, and I understand why people want me to elaborate on all sorts of points, but I am not going to give a running commentary on a matter that is now being considered by the authorities. I have to wait for them to conclude.

Andrew Jones: The update from Sue Gray is, as she says herself, “extremely limited”. She says that
“it is not possible at present to provide a meaningful report”.
Will my right hon. Friend confirm that at the earliest opportunity he will have the report published in full?

Boris Johnson: What we will do is wait until the police have concluded their inquiries, and then see what more we can publish. That is what we are going to do.

Catherine West: As the Prime Minister will recall, during Prime Minister’s Question Time on 8 December, I asked
“whether there was a party in Downing Street on 13 November”.—[Official Report, 8 December 2021; Vol. 705, c. 379.]
Now the report says, as one of the bullet points on the first page, that there was
“a gathering in the No 10 Downing Street flat”
and
“a gathering in No 10 Downing Street on the departure of a special adviser”.
Did the Prime Minister inadvertently mislead this House? Will he put us all out of our agony, and stop dragging democracy through the mud?

Boris Johnson: I stick by what I said to the hon. Lady, and if she cares about democracy and due process, she should wait until the inquiry has been concluded.

Mark Jenkinson: As a non-drinker who long ago realised that sobriety delivers everything that alcohol promised, I have noted with interest that a drinking culture exists in Downing Street and that it predates my right hon. Friend’s tenure by some decades. Does he, like me, welcome Sue Gray’s report, and will he commit to fixing that culture?

Boris Johnson: Yes. I thank my hon. Friend very much, and we are certainly going to take up the relevant parts of the recommendations and see that they are properly enforced within the civil service and the spad—special adviser—code.

Caroline Lucas: The shocking incompetence of the Met police has meant that we have a report that has been gutted, but frankly, we did not need Sue Gray to tell us about the level of dishonour and deception that has infected not only Downing Street but so many Tory Members. It has been excruciating to watch so many Tory MPs and Ministers willing to defend the indefensible and calculating what is in their own party political interests rather than what is right for our country, complicit in the same decaying system where the pursuit of power trumps integrity. The Prime Minister is certainly a bad apple, but the whole tree is rotten and the whole country wants reform. Could we not make a start with a major overhaul of the ministerial code, given that its founding assumption—that it could be policed by the Prime Minister of the day, because they would be a person of honesty and integrity—has been so widely, comprehensively and utterly discredited?

Boris Johnson: We are reforming the ministerial code. Of all the things that the hon. Lady has just said, I disagree with her most passionately about what she said about the police. I think they do an outstanding job, and I think we should allow them to get on with that job. I will await their conclusions.

Jackie Doyle-Price: I draw attention to general finding number (vii) in the report, which documents that No. 10 Downing Street has morphed from a small team supporting the Prime Minister into a self-indulgent bureaucracy all of its own. I am personally tired of reading in Sunday newspapers about officials briefing against Ministers, and about delays as things are stuck in No.10. I have spoken to Ministers who are getting frustrated by this. Call me old-fashioned, but when my right hon. Friend institutes his review, could he ensure that it is Ministers who are accountable for decisions that are taken in their name, not flunkies in No.10? Will he ensure that the reforms properly restore ministerial accountability?

Boris Johnson: I thank my hon. Friend very much; I enjoyed our joint trip to Tilbury this morning. Yes, I do think it is vital, as Sue Gray says, that we learn from this and that we strengthen Cabinet Government and the principle of ministerial responsibility.

Afzal Khan: I have spoken about my own experience of loss during the pandemic many times. I do not claim that my experience is special—indeed, it has been all too common—but as a member of Parliament I have a responsibility to provide a voice for the bereaved families. Make no mistake, this report is utterly damning and suggests that the Prime Minister’s and the Government’s actions were a risk to public health. How on earth can the Prime Minister stand there and justify this? Does he now accept that his actions were a complete and absolute failure of leadership and judgment?

Boris Johnson: I repeat what I have said: that I am deeply sorry for all the suffering there has been throughout this pandemic, whether of the hon. Gentleman’s constituents or anyone in the country. As to his points about what is in the report, I do not think his views are substantiated by what the report says. I think he should wait to see where the inquiry goes. That is what I propose to do.

Suzanne Webb: Does my right hon. Friend agree that Opposition Members have used up far too much parliamentary time debating this? I can assure him that the residents of Stourbridge want the Prime Minister to focus on the matters that they really care about.

Lindsay Hoyle: Just a moment. In fairness, the Prime Minister asked to make the statement. I am not going to attack the Prime Minister for making the statement, and I certainly would not expect it from his own side.

Boris Johnson: Thank you, Mr Speaker. I want to say how strongly I agree, none the less, with my hon. Friend, because, yes, of course it is vital that we make this statement, that we learn from Sue Gray’s report and that we take action, which is what the Government are doing, but it is also vital, frankly, that we get on with the people’s priorities. That is what this Government are also doing.

Chris Matheson: Just to summarise, we have had, “I didn’t know there was a party”, “There wasn’t a party, it was a work meeting” and, “There was a party but I wasn’t there”. The Prime Minister mentioned international negotiations. Why should anybody—any country, any Government—with whom we enter into negotiations deal at all with, and take any kind of word from, a Government who clearly act with mendacity aforethought from the start?

Boris Johnson: This is the Government who took this country out of the European Union—did what was necessary—and who are bringing the west together to stand up against Vladimir Putin. Those are the important considerations. As for the rest of what the hon. Gentleman said, it is nonsense but he should wait for the police inquiry.

Holly Mumby-Croft: My constituents in Scunthorpe are very keen to see industrial energy prices fixed, so will the Prime Minister reassure me that he will not be distracted by any of this, and that he will get on with the job and come forward with a solution to that issue?

Boris Johnson: Yes, my hon. Friend is completely right; we need to address not only consumer energy costs, but business and industrial energy costs, and I know that my right hon. Friend the Chancellor will be bringing forward a package of measures as soon as he can.

Kirsten Oswald: During his statement, the Prime Minister kept referring to “we” when he talked about the sorry saga that Sue Gray has reported, but it is his rules, his rule-breaking and his inability to tell the truth about it that is the issue. He is the Prime Minister. Does he not take any personal responsibility at all for this disgraceful fiasco?

Boris Johnson: I have taken full responsibility throughout the pandemic.

Richard Fuller: As with the report on Owen Paterson, I felt it was important to support the process and read the report, because it is important to separate fact from allegation, and to know what the report actually says, rather than what I would  wish it to say. Those are two lessons that the Leader of the Opposition needs to learn. I promised my constituents that I would ask the Prime Minister to say that he would support the recommendations in the report, and there are four. One is that
“every Government Department has a clear and robust policy in place covering the consumption of alcohol in the workplace.”
Another is that access to the garden,
“including for meetings, should be by invitation only and in a controlled environment.”
A third is:
“There should be easier ways for staff to raise such concerns”.
That is basically about whistleblowing. Another is:
“Too much responsibility and expectation is placed on the senior official whose principal function is the direct support of the Prime Minister.”
Those are the facts and the findings of the report. Will the Prime Minister accept them in full?

Boris Johnson: Yes, I do. As I have said to the House earlier, I accept the findings of the report in full—the general findings—and we are immediately taking steps to implement the changes.

Maria Eagle: The Prime Minister has just said that he accepts the findings of the report. One of them says:
“There were failures of leadership and judgment by different parts of No 10 and the Cabinet Office at different times.”
He provides the political leadership and the political judgment at No. 10. Does he accept his own personal wrongdoing and failings in this regard?

Boris Johnson: Not only have I accepted full responsibility throughout, but I have apologised repeatedly to the House for any misjudgments that I may have made myself, but, again, I must urge the hon. Lady to wait for the conclusion of the inquiry.

Aaron Bell: It seems that a lot of people attended events in May 2020. The one I recall attending was my grandmother’s funeral. She was a wonderful woman. As well as her love for her family, she served her community as a councillor and she served Dartford Conservative Association loyally for many years. I drove for three hours from Staffordshire to Kent. There were only 10 people at the funeral; many people who loved her had to watch online. I did not hug my siblings. I did not hug my parents. I gave a eulogy and afterwards I did not even go into her house for a cup of tea; I drove back, for three hours, from Kent to Staffordshire. Does the Prime Minister think I am a fool?

Boris Johnson: No. I want to thank my hon. Friend and say how deeply I sympathise with him and his family for their loss. All I can say, again, is that I am very, very sorry for misjudgments that may have been made by me or anybody else in No.10 and the Cabinet Office. I can only ask him respectfully to look at what Sue Gray has said and to wait for the conclusion of the inquiry.

Clive Efford: It is important that this House can trust what Ministers tell us from that Dispatch Box. On 8 December, regarding events at No.10 Downing Street, the Prime Minister said:
“I repeat that I have been repeatedly assured since these allegations emerged that there was no party and that no covid rules were broken. That is what I have been repeatedly assured.”—[Official Report, 8 December 2021; Vol. 705, c. 372.]
The people who gave him those assurances led to his inadvertently misleading the House. Have those people faced any disciplinary proceedings?

Boris Johnson: First, the hon. Gentleman needs, I am afraid, to await the conclusions of the police inquiry, because the premise of his question may or may not be substantiated. What I can tell the House is that, yes, as I have said before, there will certainly be changes in the way that we do things, and changes in No.10.

Duncan Baker: North Norfolk consistently had some of the lowest levels of infection in the country; we followed the rules. Many of my constituents have been incensed by this matter, and the damage it is doing to the Government is enormous. It is about integrity and trust. May I ask again, because people want to know, how can the Prime Minister satisfy my constituents and assure me that full accountability and transparency on the findings of the final Gray report will swiftly follow?

Boris Johnson: I will do whatever I can to ensure that the House has as much clarity as possible. There are legal issues that we face about some of the testimony that has been given, but, in the meantime, what Sue Gray wants us to do is to wait for the conclusion of the investigation and to see where that goes, and to support the police in their work.

Wera Hobhouse: Does the Prime Minister need somebody else to tell him whether he was there, or that he is there now?

Boris Johnson: I refer the hon. Lady to the answer that I have already given.

Simon Baynes: We all recognise that No. 10 Downing Street is an unusual amalgam of workplace, office space and private home. What steps will the Prime Minister take to ensure that the lines between each of them are made clearer in the future?

Boris Johnson: My hon. Friend will see reference to that very problem in Sue Gray’s report and we will take steps to clarify things and make sure that there is greater transparency in the lines of command.

Stephen Timms: Does the Prime Minister recognise that repeatedly making statements, including from the Dispatch Box, which turn out subsequently to be untrue, is a serious problem, or does he not recognise that?

Boris Johnson: I really think the right hon. Gentleman is prejudging things, and he should wait for the conclusion of the inquiries.

Paul Holmes: I welcome the fact that my right hon. Friend has come to this House as a first step in responding to the report. He has also rightly outlined that the relationship between No. 10 and this House needs to improve. Will he reassure me that he will continue to come to the House to update us on the implementation of the recommendations in Sue Gray’s report and say how that will happen?

Boris Johnson: I am only too happy to assure the House that we intend to make changes starting from now and that I will keep the House updated.

Paula Barker: When there is a failure of leadership and an inappropriate culture in an organisation, the person at the top should go. This outrageous debacle has not happened in spite of the Prime Minister; it has happened because of him. Will he now do the right thing and resign?

Boris Johnson: The answer is no, because I am going to wait for the conclusions of the inquiry before any of the assertions that the hon. Lady has made can be established.

Greg Smith: I thank the Prime Minister for his statement, particularly the acknowledge- ment of the enormous sacrifice that many British people went through. As somebody who was unable to say goodbye to their grandparents this time last year, I welcome his sincere apology. As we wait for the Metropolitan police’s findings, can he give me a categoric assurance that it will be full speed ahead on fixing the Northern Ireland protocol, standing up for our friends in Ukraine and fixing the cost of living crisis?

Boris Johnson: Yes. That is exactly what the Government are going to do and we will not be distracted for one minute.

Wayne David: In the general findings of Sue Gray’s report, there is a reference to the
“failures of leadership and judgment by…No 10”.
Does the Prime Minister accept that she was largely referring to him?

Boris Johnson: I really think that the hon. Gentleman should recite the whole report. I have told him that I accept the findings that Sue Gray has given in full and we are acting on them today.

Natalie Elphicke: I welcome my right hon. Friend’s apology. He has taken responsibility; he has apologised; and it is right that he should do so. Can he confirm that tackling the small boats crisis will remain top in the new Office of the Prime Minister, because that is what the country wants to see—this Prime Minister getting on with the job?

Boris Johnson: Yes, that is right. That is why we brought forward the Nationality and Borders Bill, which I am delighted to say that my hon. Friend supports and that the Government are getting through, and which the Labour party voted against.

Stephen Farry: The flippancy of some of the answers today and the non-answers to other questions do not suggest that the Prime Minister is genuinely sorry. Does he recognise the long-term damage that he risks doing to historical norms of democracy? Is it right that they are sacrificed in the interests of one man who refuses to do what the country knows needs to happen? Can he point to one single example where he personally has improved standards in public life?

Boris Johnson: How about deciding to honour the wishes of the people and deliver Brexit in spite of the Opposition’s attempts to subvert democracy?

Rob Roberts: Delivery is key. The Prime Minister delivers. He delivered on Brexit. He delivered with furlough and with the self-employment income support scheme, which ensured that businesses were able to survive. [Interruption.] The Opposition shout it down because they do not like it; that is fine. He delivered one of the best vaccination programmes in the world. He delivered a country that is coming out of a pandemic and an economy that is thriving, with people who sadly lost their jobs in the last two years having more vacancies than ever to choose from. Nobody talks about those things, however, because all—

Lindsay Hoyle: Order. I think the Prime Minister has a grip of what the hon. Gentleman is saying.

Boris Johnson: We will deliver on the people’s priorities. We will deliver and keep delivering for Wales.

Florence Eshalomi: One of the hardest things I have had to do as an MP is speak to the family of Ismail Mohamed Abdulwahab, who was 13 years old when he died on 30 March 2020. He was one of the youngest people to lose his life to covid. I will admit that when I spoke to his mother, I broke down on the call.
Ismail’s family, like so many other constituents in Vauxhall, followed the rules. Many of them were scared to go out; many of them had to bury their loved ones without being there; many of them walk past the covid memorial wall in my constituency with that heart showing their loss. Does the Prime Minister now understand, and does he not feel ashamed, that his actions have brought disrepute to the office that he holds?

Boris Johnson: Of course I share the hon. Lady’s grief for Ismail.
I sympathise with his family. I understand the pain and loss that everyone has experienced throughout this country. All I can say is that I will continue to do my best to fight covid, as I have done throughout this pandemic, and to deliver for the British people. I cannot say more than that.

Marco Longhi: Having the required management expertise to run dozens of offices with hundreds of people within, is one thing. Running the country and getting the big decisions right is quite another. I welcome the Prime Minister’s commitment to have a look at what is happening at No. 10 and those management structures, so we can deliver on the Brexit promises we made to the people of this country.

Boris Johnson: I thank my hon. Friend. That is why we are taking up the findings of the Sue Gray report. We want to make sure that No. 10 works better and that the whole of the Government work better. It has been focused very much on covid, but we now need to deliver exclusively on the great priorities of the people.

Hannah Bardell: Last summer, my team and I said goodbye to our colleague through the window of her hospice as she died of cancer. We did   not get to hug her, and we were just like many millions of people across the UK. We followed the rules, while the Prime Minister and his colleagues did not.
It makes me sick to my stomach that we will not get the findings of the report because the police were so late to the party—the same Met police who were happy to arrest women who were protesting the murder of Sarah Everard. It makes me sick to my stomach that he does not understand the anger, fury and upset of millions of people across the UK. Sometimes, an apology will not cut it. It is time for action. It is time for a clear out. It is time for him to resign.

Boris Johnson: Again, I sympathise very much with the experience of the hon. Lady’s constituents and all the pain that people have gone through throughout this pandemic. I must say to her, though, that she is prejudging the issue in question. I do not think that is the right thing to do. I have a great deal of respect for the police and they should be allowed to get on with their job.

Paul Howell: I think we have to remember that we are all talking about the breaking of the rules. Clearly, the rules and what happened are under question here. The rules that were put out by this Government have got this country to where it is. We have to remember that the rules did the right thing. Yes, there must be consequences in No. 10 for any rules that have been broken, but the right thing was done by instigating the rules in the first place. When I talk to my constituents, they say, yes, we need to ask the question about what happened, but can we stop making that the only sore subject, and can the Opposition talk about something else? We need to move on and level up this country.

Boris Johnson: My hon. Friend is right. The rules are important. It was amazing to see the way people pulled together throughout the pandemic. I thank people very much. But what we need to do, if we possibly can—I think the Opposition would agree—is to focus on the issues that matter above all to the British people: fixing the cost of living, rebuilding our economy and clearing the covid backlogs. That is what this Government are doing.

Barry Sheerman: I have known the Prime Minister a long time, and we have always got on quite well. He is not a wicked man, but he is a man who, for years and in every job, has got by flying on the seat of his pants. He has a chaotic management style, and that is a question of character. I ask him really to look in the mirror, as he said this morning, and say, “Am I the man for this challenging time for our country abroad, at home and in every sense?” Has he the character to carry on and do that job properly?

Boris Johnson: Yes, because quite frankly I think it was absolutely indispensable that we had a strong No. 10 that was able to take us out of the EU, in spite of all the efforts of the Labour party to block it, and not only that but a booster campaign and a vaccine campaign that were led by No. 10 and have made a dramatic difference not just to the health of this country, but to the economic fortunes of this country. Whatever the hon. Gentleman says about me and my leadership, that is what we have delivered in the last year alone.

Scott Benton: When I was knocking on doors in Blackpool at the weekend, I spoke to Julie, who said: “This Prime Minister has had the most difficult job in living history. He’s been dealing with a pandemic in which he nearly died. He’s been dealing with a media who haven’t forgiven him yet for delivering Brexit. And he hasn’t had a chance to crack on and deliver yet for the British people on their priorities.” The report has come out today and the Prime Minister has apologised. Let us allow him to get on and—[Interruption.]

Lindsay Hoyle: Order.

Boris Johnson: I want to say how passionately, vehemently and emphatically I agree with my hon. Friend’s remarks, which I could not quite hear. He is completely right. That is the priority of the British people and that is the priority of the Government.

Debbie Abrahams: As limited as the Gray report is, the findings are still incredibly damning. There are multiples issues related to failures of leadership and judgment. Given that the Nolan principles and standards of public life describe the centrality of integrity, honesty and leadership, how can the Prime Minister continue?

Boris Johnson: I really think that the hon. Lady needs to read the report carefully. I am afraid that the conclusions she has drawn are not ones that I support. We are following Sue Gray’s advice and changing the way that No. 10 runs. We are going to do things differently, but I cannot agree with what the hon. Lady says.

Katherine Fletcher: On Saturday, I was out and about in Lancashire enjoying ice cream—as I know you and your family do, Mr Speaker—in some of the finest ice cream parlours in the north of England. People said to me, “He’s a wally, but 100,000 Russians have just turned up. What the bloody hell are we doing talking about cake?” Does the Prime Minister agree with that statement?

Boris Johnson: I thank my hon. Friend very much. What the country needs and what the west needs—[Interruption.]

Lindsay Hoyle: Order. If Members do not want to carry on the questioning, I am happy to pull stumps now. If we are going to have questions, I am going to hear the answers as well as the questions. [Interruption.] There is no use in the Member keeping standing up; you are going to have to sit down for a bit.

Boris Johnson: What the country needs now is the UK Government working with our friends and partners to stand up to Vladimir Putin and to make sure that we have a strong package of sanctions. That is what we are doing.

Nick Smith: The Prime Minister sets the culture at No. 10. Why does he think staff members there felt unable to raise their concerns about the bad behaviours reported today?

Boris Johnson: That is one of the recommendations of the Sue Gray inquiry that we are going to take up to make sure that nobody should feel that in No. 10. That  is why we are going to review the code to ensure that nobody feels that they have any inhibition on coming forward with any complaint that they may have.

Zarah Sultana: The Prime Minister and his allies are trying to distract and deflect from the truth, but here are the indisputable facts: the Prime Minister attended Downing Street parties; he told this House and the people we represent that he attended no parties and, in fact, that there were no parties. The rules were clearly broken and the ministerial code has been violated, so when will he stop insulting the intelligence of the British people, do the right thing and resign?

Boris Johnson: I really think the hon. Lady has got to let the Metropolitan police get on and do their job.

Brendan O'Hara: Does the Prime Minister not recognise that the public are rapidly losing faith in the institutions that they must be able to trust if our democracy is to survive? It appears that there is no individual, no organisation, no group and no force whose reputation will not be sacrificed on the altar of saving this Prime Minister. Does he consider the erosion of public trust and the foundations of our democracy a price worth paying to ensure his personal survival?

Boris Johnson: I believe that among the foundations of our democracy are due process and the rule of law, and allowing the police to get on with their job, and that is what we are going to do.

Luke Pollard: Paragraph iv of Sue Gray’s general findings states that there is a culture of “excessive consumption of alcohol” and that it is “not appropriate”. Is there also a culture of excessive drug taking in Downing Street?

Boris Johnson: Any drug taking would be excessive. Perhaps the hon. Gentleman should direct that question to the Labour Front Bench.

Derek Twigg: We have heard a lot about prejudging things today, but we only have to look at paragraph iii of the general findings for mention of
“failures of leadership and judgment by different parts of No 10 and the Cabinet Office… Some of the events should not have been allowed to take place. Other events should not have been allowed to develop as they did.”
I do not think that that is prejudging anything; it is very clear. There is only one person in charge at No. 10 in totality, and that is the Prime Minister. Let me remind the Prime Minister why this rule breaking and the way No. 10 behaved matters. Let me quote a constituent. This is from one of a number of emails I have had from constituents who have lost loved ones. She said:
“We received a call at 11.15pm on 29th May saying mum was deteriorating. Both my sister & I drove to the home and I spent the night sat on a chair outside her bedroom window watching her die! All I could do was sob & shout to her and tell her that I loved her. I couldn’t even hold her hand”.
That is why you should go, Prime Minister.

Boris Johnson: I totally understand the feelings of the hon. Gentleman’s constituents, and I accept that things could have been done better in No. 10, as I  have told the House before, but I must ask him to study what Sue Gray has said. We are acting on all her recommendations.

Nadia Whittome: Can the Prime Minister explain how changing the civil service hierarchy would have prevented him from breaching the covid regulations, as he has admitted in this House? When will he take responsibility for his own actions and stop hiding behind other people? My constituents do not want another Government Department; they want him to resign.

Boris Johnson: The hon. Lady is wrong in what she says and I direct her to what I said earlier.

Emma Lewell-Buck: It has been revealed that in April 2021, as the Prime Minister partied, he swiftly rejected the idea of bereavement bubbles for those who had lost loved ones or suffered miscarriages, stillbirths or a child neonatal death. Far from getting it, he has deflected, laughed and smirked his way through this statement. He is a disingenuous man, isn’t he?

Boris Johnson: No. This has been a harrowing and tragic experience for the entire country. We have done our best to deal with it. As for what the hon. Lady says about what has been going on in No. 10, I ask her to look at the report but also to wait for the police inquiry.

Owen Thompson: This afternoon we have heard distraction, deflection and confusion, and we cannot even get an answer to the simplest of questions about whether the full report will be published when available. May I therefore ask the Prime Minister whether we are now looking at a situation of hobble, hobble, quack, quack?

Boris Johnson: Nothing would give me greater pleasure than to publish everything that we currently have, but the fact is that there are legal impediments and we have to wait until the police inquiry has concluded.

Bill Cash: I accept entirely what the Prime Minister has just said. It is absolutely essential that we wait until we hear the next stage in these proceedings in relation to any future investigations. I would also like to draw attention to the historic achievements of this Prime Minister in relation not only to delivering Brexit but to the vaccine roll-out and to his dealings with Mr Putin. I believe that everybody should take that most firmly into account.

Boris Johnson: I thank my hon. Friend very much, and I think he is completely right. He might have added that we have the fastest economic growth in the G7, thanks to the steps that this Government have been taking.

Karin Smyth: We have established that there were parties, so we are just arguing about who is responsible. As the hon. Member for Thurrock (Jackie Doyle-Price) said, that is a Minister. If it is not the Prime Minister, is it the Secretary of State for Levelling  Up, Housing and Communities, the right hon. Member for Surrey Heath (Michael Gove), who should be facing the sack?

Boris Johnson: I remind the hon. Lady of what Sue Gray says in paragraph 12, that no such conclusion can be drawn so far. The hon. Lady must wait for the conclusion of the inquiry.

Janet Daby: The Prime Minister announced at the weekend that he will be calling President Putin to urge de-escalation of the situation in Ukraine. The Daily Mirror has just reported that the call has been cancelled because the Prime Minister has been dealing with the Sue Gray report. Can he confirm that, on a matter of such grave importance, the report is correct and that he will be speaking to Vladimir Putin as soon as he leaves the Chamber?

Boris Johnson: I will be speaking to President Putin as soon as I can.

Layla Moran: I have read the report in full, and I think this is the most striking sentence:
“There were failures of leadership and judgment by different parts of No 10 and the Cabinet Office at different times.”
My constituents have been writing to me while the Prime Minister has been speaking to say that he should resign, but they also want to know the full facts. Once the Met has concluded, why could he not then publish the full, unredacted report?

Boris Johnson: We will have to see where the police get to, we will have to see the conclusion of their inquiry, and we will have to see what the legal position is then.

Mohammad Yasin: My constituents are deeply troubled and angered by the frequent scandals that are engulfing the Prime Minister’s Administration. It is not just partygate and the ongoing cover-up but all the other things: the proroguing of Parliament, the treatment of the Queen, the £3.5 billion of crony covid contracts, the writing off of £4.3 billion of covid loan fraud and the Russia report, to name but a few. Sussex University researchers have warned that this Administration is more corrupt
“than any UK government since the Second World War.”
The Prime Minister knows this, doesn’t he?

Boris Johnson: The hon. Gentleman’s point is completely ridiculous. He mentions what we did to get Brexit done, which was crucial to restoring public trust in democracy.

Richard Holden: Like me, many of my constituents have been appalled by the reports of what has been happening in No. 10 and will welcome that my right hon. Friend has come to the House today to apologise as a first step in responding to this. Will he assure me that he will continue to keep the House updated on the implementation of the measures he is taking in response to the report? Will he also  ensure that the whole No. 10 team fully co-operates with the Met’s inquiries so that they conclude as swiftly as possible?

Boris Johnson: Yes, of course I will keep the House updated, and of course everybody in No. 10 will co-operate with the Met to the full.

Liam Byrne: This is surely a new low: a Prime Minister of our country forced to come here to the mother of Parliaments to plead the fifth in a criminal investigation because, if the truth were told, he knows it would incriminate him. Let me ask a simple question. If he cannot get his facts straight on whether he was at a party in his own flat, how will anyone in this House ever again believe a word he says, and how will our partners around the world ever put their trust in him?

Boris Johnson: I am not going to dignify that question with an answer, except to say that the right hon. Gentleman has to wait. Everything he said is completely prejudicial.

Alan Brown: I thought the people of Lancashire were supposed to be straight speaking, but I can assure people that my constituents are calling the Prime Minister a lot more than a wally—words I cannot repeat. We have staff who were too frightened to raise concerns about behaviour that they knew was ongoing. Half the staff invited to the bring your own booze party did not turn up, because they knew it was wrong, yet the Prime Minister said he thought it was a work event and within the rules. His lack of leadership and judgment is also shown by the “let the bodies pile high” comment about a second lockdown. The one thing that the leader of the Scottish Tories has said that is true is that this Prime Minister is not fit for office. Given that the Prime Minister will do anything to save his own skin, does that mean that the leader of the Scottish Tories will get binned as well?

Boris Johnson: I direct the hon. Gentleman to what I have said earlier.

Mick Whitley: No one has said in the House this afternoon that 155,000 people died of covid. That is why we introduced the rules. This is simply not the comprehensive report that the British public were promised for so long, but at least it is clear in its findings that there was
“a serious failure to observe not just the high standards expected of those working at the heart of Government but also of the standards expected of the entire British population”
at the height of the pandemic. Does the Prime Minister accept responsibility for his failure to live up to the standards that the rest of us were expected to uphold?

Boris Johnson: I take responsibility for everything that happened in No. 10 and that the Government did throughout the pandemic.

Barry Gardiner: The Gray report is clear that there should be no excessive consumption of alcohol in a workplace. Can the Prime Minister therefore assure the House that his own consumption of  alcohol was not excessive and in particular that his judgment was at no time so clouded that he was in danger of telling the truth?

Boris Johnson: I could not quite hear the end of the hon. Gentleman’s question, but the answer is no. If he thinks I drunk too much, no.

Alex Norris: The Prime Minister wants my constituents to suspend their disbelief and wait for the Met police to report. In which case, will he at least give them clarity that should the Metropolitan police issue him with a fixed penalty notice for participation at his party, he will resign?

Boris Johnson: The hon. Gentleman really needs to wait and see what the Met decide.

Andrew Gwynne: We have had excessive what-aboutery, bluster and bravado from the Prime Minister. I suggest to him politely that we need a lot more humility from him, given that while the Gray report might be paper thin, it is very clear about the serious failings at No. 10. A fish rots from its head. May I suggest to the Prime Minister that it is not a new Prime Minister’s office that we need, but a new Prime Minister?

Boris Johnson: I hear the hon. Gentleman, and I simply repeat what I have said earlier. I am grateful to Sue Gray. We are taking action following her report, but he needs to wait for the conclusion of the inquiry.

Patricia Gibson: Sue Gray has made it clear that this is not a report, but an update on the investigation into covid breaches in Downing Street. Indeed, in her update she says that she is “extremely limited” in what she can say and that
“it is not possible at present to provide a meaningful report”.
If it is a case of, “Nothing to see here, move on”, as the Prime Minister is desperately trying to convince us, why has he repeatedly refused to commit to publish the full report, even after the police investigation has concluded? What does it say about those populating the Government Benches if they still genuinely think he is the best among them to be Prime Minister?

Boris Johnson: That is not what I have said.

Neil Coyle: The Prime Minister told Parliament and the British people that there were no parties. We now know that he attended several, including one at which he was ambushed with cake, in his most pathetic excuse yet. Given his previous statements, which we know to be patently false, how does he explain why this report says that at least 12 parties in his home warrant police investigation?

Boris Johnson: The hon. Gentleman has proved several times in that question that he has not got the faintest idea what he is talking about, and he should wait for the outcome of the inquiry.

Rupa Huq: In the Prime Minister’s apologies up to now, he has explained these things away as one-offs—a work do, ambushed by a cake and all those kinds of things. But this report makes it clear that there was a repeated pattern of behaviour, with the booze-ups after work that nobody  else was having—not all our constituents who followed the rules. The report says that there is an investigation of a Downing Street party on 13 November 2020. Why did the Prime Minister tell my hon. Friend the Member for Hornsey and Wood Green (Catherine West) on 8 December that no such gathering took place? Subsequently, he told my right hon. Friend the leader of the Labour party that anyone who tells mistruths from that Dispatch Box should resign. Is he a man of his word?

Boris Johnson: The hon. Lady needs to look at what I said and she needs to look at the outcome of the inquiry.

Christine Jardine: The Prime Minister said in his statement that he understands the anger of people in this country, but does he also understand that for many people in this country who are watching, their greatest fears about how this would be handled have been realised? They have seen an apology, yes, but they have also seen obfuscation, delay and tinkering, rather than an acceptance of responsibility. The Prime Minister says that he wants to get on and deal with the important issues facing this country. Perhaps the only way we will be able to do that is for him to accept that he has become an obstacle to it and resign.

Boris Johnson: No, we are going to get on with the job.

Jeff Smith: The Prime Minister was wrong in something he said earlier: the Sue Gray update can be both damning and incomplete. Most of us can only guess how much more damning the full report will be. His colleagues should worry about that. I think he knows how bad it is going to be, because he knows what has gone on. Is that not the real reason why he will not commit to publishing the report in full when the police have completed their investigation?

Boris Johnson: No. The hon. Gentleman is totally prejudging the whole thing. He needs to contain himself and wait for the police to complete their inquiries.

Drew Hendry: The Sue Gray update is not the report that this House deserves and it is not the transparency that the public were expecting, but it does make it very clear that there were “failures of leadership” at No. 10. The Prime Minister is the leader at No. 10, so will he now pack his suitcase, or will he leave it to his officials to carry his cans?

Boris Johnson: The hon. Gentleman just needs to look at the report again and to wait for the conclusion of the inquiry.

Matt Western: “Look her in the eyes and tell her you never bend the rules.” A lot of us remember that campaign. It cost of tens of millions of pounds of taxpayers’ money. On 13 November 2020, the Prime Minister bent the rules, didn’t he?

Boris Johnson: I refer the hon. Gentleman to what I said earlier in this House. Frankly, he needs to wait until the conclusion of the police inquiry.

Stephen Flynn: This morning, the Conservative party in Scotland issued a press release that stated:
“The pandemic sees rise in criminals getting away with crimes”.
Was it talking about the Prime Minister?

Boris Johnson: What we are actually doing is cutting crime by 14% and putting 20,000 more police on the streets.

Rushanara Ali: Week in, week out throughout the pandemic, I, like many of my colleagues, had to deal with constituents who could not see their dying relatives or grieve with their families. Some of us were directly affected when we lost family members and loved ones. The Prime Minister’s actions have made a mockery of the British people’s sacrifices during the pandemic, and now he is the subject of a criminal investigation. It is a new low for our country and it makes a mockery of our democracy to the rest of the world. If the Prime Minister takes responsibility for everything that has happened, as he has said, is it not time that he puts his party, this Parliament and the country out of their misery and steps down, so that we can move on and focus on the national interest? At the moment, that is not possible because of the crisis that he and No. 10 have created.

Boris Johnson: No.

Carol Monaghan: It is clear that the Prime Minister has used these parties, like many an under-par manager, to buy popularity and favour. Can the Prime Minister tell us if he is using the same techniques when negotiating treaties and trade deals with international leaders?

Boris Johnson: No.

Rachael Maskell: Today should have been about contrition and remorse, but it seems that the Prime Minister does not understand the meaning of “sorry”; instead, it has insulted the people who have suffered and sacrificed for the last two years. One question many people want to know is: who is paying for these investigations—the police and Sue Gray’s report—and who is paying for his legal advice? Is it the taxpayer?

Boris Johnson: I must say I think the hon. Member is wrong in what she says. As for who is covering the police costs, the police are covering the police costs.

Daisy Cooper: The Prime Minister has inadvertently referred to this as “the” Gray report when, if he had read as far as the front cover, he would see that it is called an “update”. It is because it is an update that it makes public trust in the Met’s investigation even more important. The public must know that the Met will investigate without fear or favour, so can the Prime Minister confirm that, not at any single stage, has anybody in No. 10 or the Cabinet Office sought to influence the Met’s decision on delaying its initial investigation, or was the delay the result of its own incompetence?

Boris Johnson: No, and the only people calling into question the Met’s independence are I think those on the side opposite—on the hon. Member’s Benches.

Anna McMorrin: The Prime Minister has seriously misjudged the mood of the country, and indeed he has misjudged the mood of his own Back Benchers. My constituent wrote to me devastated and upset: he could not see his disabled son, his elderly mother with dementia and his newborn child, putting a serious toll on his mental health. Like millions across the country, he followed the rules, but the Prime Minister thinks he is above the rules. Instead, he blames his civil service and he restructures. Will he do the decent thing and resign?

Boris Johnson: I disagree with the hon. Member profoundly, because I do understand people’s feelings and I do understand why this is so important for people. But I must say that I think the best thing now is for the inquiry to be concluded, and in the meantime for us all to get on with the work that I think everybody wants us to do.

Nigel Evans: I call Marion Fellows.

Marion Fellows: Thank you, Mr Deputy Speaker, and I have enjoyed the exercise this afternoon. I also wanted to enjoy the Prime Minister’s answers to questions, but unfortunately he has ducked and dived, and done everything but answer questions about a party on 13 November, about whether he will put out the final report—

Nigel Evans: Just ask the question!

Marion Fellows: Okay, I will ask the Prime Minister one more, which has been asked already. If he gets a fine—a fixed penalty fine—from the Metropolitan police after all this is over, will he pay it himself or ask a Tory donor to pay it for him?

Boris Johnson: There is a process, and we have to wait for it to conclude.

Barbara Keeley: Among those who were the most isolated during the pandemic were people with learning disabilities, cut off from visits by their families and not even allowed an advocate if they were admitted to hospital. For too many, restrictions to services and the awful isolation without visitors that the Prime Minister’s rules expected them to follow were a matter of life and death. The mortality rate for people with learning disabilities from covid was eight times that of the general population. When he thinks about the damage done to all those groups who were so isolated and their families, and the serious failings of leadership and judgment in No. 10 found by this independent investigation, how can he think his position is tenable?

Boris Johnson: The hon. Member is entirely right about the suffering of people with learning disabilities, and indeed all vulnerable groups who were exposed to lockdowns for long periods. That is why, actually, we  worked so hard to make sure that we could get this country out of lockdown and keep it out of lockdown, and that was our objective.

Stewart Hosie: I do not need to wait for the full Sue Gray report, because this one tells me one important fact: there were a heck of a lot of parties. At which point during this catalogue of frivolity, while the Prime Minister was clearing last night’s empty wine bottles off his desk before settling down to work the following afternoon, did he conclude that having one rule for him and another for the general public was undermining his own health messaging and costing people’s lives?

Boris Johnson: The hon. Gentleman is misrepresenting what Sue Gray says. He is also, perhaps inadvertently, completely mispresenting what happened.

Kim Johnson: This report confirms what we already know: the abject failure in leadership at No. 10. Will the Prime Minister take responsibility and do what the constituents of Liverpool, Riverside are asking for—resign, so that we can get on and deal with the crisis facing this country?

Boris Johnson: No. I refer to what I said earlier.

Justin Madders: On 8 December, the Prime Minister told this House:
“I have been repeatedly assured since these allegations emerged that there was no party and that no covid rules were broken.”—[Official Report, 8 December 2021; Vol. 705, c. 372.]
Well, just who gave him those assurances? Given that he was at some of the parties, and at least one of them was in his own flat, he should not need anyone else to tell him what happened, so it looks like when the Prime Minister spoke those words he was fooling himself—or was he just trying to fool everyone else?

Boris Johnson: The hon. Gentleman needs to wait and see what the inquiry concludes. That is what due process demands. I stick by what I said.

Several hon. Members: rose—

Nigel Evans: Order. I can see eight people standing, and they are the last eight I will take—just to let the House know.

Rachel Hopkins: Section 5.1 of the ministerial code states:
“Ministers must uphold the political impartiality of the Civil Service, and not ask civil servants to act in any way which would conflict with the Civil Service Code”,
and finding vi. of Sue Gray’s report, which I have read, says:
“Some staff wanted to raise concerns about behaviours they witnessed at work but…felt unable to do so.”
Does the Prime Minister agree that if his staff—in fact, civil servants and workers everywhere—feel afraid to raise concerns about inappropriate behaviour at work, they should contact their trade union rep, or join a trade union?

Boris Johnson: That is why I have accepted the conclusions and Sue Gray’s findings in full, and we will implement the changes.

Several hon. Members: rose—

Nigel Evans: Order. I assume that everyone standing has been here for the opening statement and throughout.

Dr Caroline Johnson: I have listened carefully to the statement, the questions and the answers, and indeed to my constituents, many of whom are devastated to hear that there may have been parties and some of whom have suffered great hardship. I am glad that the Prime Minister has come here to apologise and to take on board the recommendations, but I am concerned that this is taking time and attention from key issues. This statement alone has been going on for nearly two hours. The Prime Minister has achieved great things with Brexit and vaccines, but can he assure this House, me and my constituents that this ongoing investigation and the reorganisation of No. 10 will not take his laser-like focus away from the issues that matter to us?

Boris Johnson: Yes, I can give my hon. Friend that absolute assurance.

Hilary Benn: Has a date been set for the Prime Minister to be interviewed by the Metropolitan police in connection with their inquiry?

Boris Johnson: The police are independent and they must get on with their inquiry.

Dave Doogan: This reads like a dreadful, poorly written soap opera—an unbelievable soap opera. I hear Government Members say how important it is to their constituents to go into the detail, but my constituents are incandescent at the behaviour of this Prime Minister. Will he accept the damage he is doing to the office of elected representative—to all of us—and will he do the right thing and clear out?

Boris Johnson: No, for the reasons I have already given.

Steven Bonnar: We do know that staff were made to work in conditions that made them feel uneasy, and perhaps even unsafe, and they also felt that they were unable to say something. People were exposed to a potentially deadly virus, unable to say something about it, in their workplace, while parties were raging on around and about them, “At least some” of which, says Mrs Gray,
“represent a serious failure to observe…the high standards expected of those working at the heart of Government”.
Who is responsible for that, Prime Minister?

Boris Johnson: The hon. Member is completely misrepresenting what took place.

Gavin Newlands: Despite the omissions from Sue Gray’s update, it makes crystal clear that the office that the Prime Minister occupies and the Government that he leads behaved in a despicable and disrespectful way when the public faced the gravest of threats. Does he not accept that his personal conduct before becoming Prime Minister and since has been completely unacceptable and that if he had any respect for his own office and for the public—and, indeed, a scintilla of integrity—he would announce his resignation to the 1922 committee tonight?

Boris Johnson: No.

Stuart McDonald: When will the various statements made by the Prime Minister from the Dispatch Box about parties and gatherings at Downing Street be investigated under the ministerial code? Is it not absolutely farcical that that is a question for the Prime Minister at all?

Boris Johnson: We have an investigation going on. That is the one that I think people should focus on, and they should allow the police to get on with their job.

Richard Thomson: The Prime Minister said in his statement, “sorry for the things we…did not get right” and, “sorry for the way this…has been handled”, which is a generic non-apology that will mean absolutely nothing to anyone who heard it. What I and millions of others want to hear is: apart from getting caught out in all of this, what is the Prime Minister personally sorry and genuinely regretful for in his own conduct? If he just resorts to that tired, hackneyed form of words that he used to begin with, does that not show that it is not a new Office of the Prime Minister that we need but a new Prime Minister in office?

Boris Johnson: I have repeated several times how sorry I am for any misjudgements that I made, and I continue to apologise for them. All I can say is that we need to get on and await the outcome of the inquiry and allow the Government to deliver on the priorities of the country, which are: to unite and level up; to continue to cut crime; and to make colossal investments across our whole country. That is what we are going to do.

Nigel Evans: Order. I thank the Prime Minister for his statement and for answering questions for just short of two hours.

Russia: Sanctions

Elizabeth Truss: With permission, Mr Deputy Speaker, I would like to make a statement on what we are doing to tackle Russia’s aggression against Ukraine. Moscow’s malign intent is clear: it has massed over 100,000 troops on Ukraine’s frontier and Russian forces are continuing to arrive in Belarus. It is only eight years since Russia illegally annexed Crimea and stoked conflict in the Donbass region, so we know that the danger is real. They have been pursuing a campaign of hybrid warfare aimed at destabilising the country. Just last week, we exposed the Kremlin’s plans to install a puppet regime in Kyiv.
This threatening behaviour towards a sovereign, democratic, independent country is completely unacceptable. It is a clear violation of the commitments and obligations that Russia freely signed up to, from the Helsinki Final Act and the Minsk protocols to the Budapest memorandum, which guaranteed to
“respect the independence and sovereignty and the existing borders of Ukraine.”
The only way forward is for Russia to de-escalate, pull back its troops and engage in meaningful talks on the basis of those existing obligations. That is why the UK is determined to lead the way through deterrence and diplomacy.
The Prime Minister will travel to the region this week, and later today the UK will be joining discussions at the UN Security Council to apply further pressure on Russia to take the diplomatic route. I will be flying out to Moscow over the next fortnight. That builds on our campaign of diplomatic engagement over recent weeks and months. I have led calls from the G7, NATO and the OSCE to urge Russia to desist from its reckless and destabilising activities in Ukraine, as well as in Georgia, the Baltics and the Western Balkans. I have raised these issues directly with the Russian Foreign Minister, Sergey Lavrov. Both the United States and NATO have set out areas where we could explore reciprocal measures to increase transparency, reduce risk, and take forward arms control. The ball is firmly in Russia’s court.
While we are determined to accelerate those efforts, we do so from a position of strength. We are combining dialogue with deterrence. That is why the Prime Minister is considering options for further deployments of our armed forces, to reassure and protect allies on NATO’s eastern flank. We are preparing to offer to support NATO with additional fast jets, warships and military specialists. As NATO’s biggest spender in Europe on defence, we are prepared to deploy our forces accordingly.
We have been very clear that a united alliance would meet any further Russian invasion of Ukraine with massive consequences for Russia’s interests and economy. We are preparing an unprecedented package of co-ordinated sanctions with our partners, which would impose severe costs. Today, I am setting out our readiness to act. We will be laying legislation before the House that will significantly strengthen our hand in dealing with Russia’s aggressive action towards Ukraine. It will go further than ever before.
Until now, the UK has only been able to sanction those linked to the destabilisation of Ukraine. This new legislation will give us the power to sanction a much  broader range of individuals and businesses. We will be able to target any company that is linked to the Russian state, engages in business of economic significance to the Russian state, or operates in a sector of strategic significance to the Russian state. Not only will we be able to target these entities, we will also be able to go after those who own or control them. This will be the toughest sanctions regime against Russia we have ever had, and it is the most radical departure in approach since leaving the European Union. Those in and around the Kremlin will have nowhere to hide.
We will make sure that those who share responsibility for the Kremlin’s aggressive and destabilising action will share in bearing a heavy cost. Their assets in the UK will be frozen. No UK business or individual would be able to transact with them, and should they seek to enter the UK, they would be turned back. Laying this legislation now will enable us to act in concert with the United States and other partners rapidly, multiplying our collective impact. We will use these new powers in a targeted manner, designed to damage the interests of those who bear greatest responsibility for Russia’s actions and exert the greatest pressure to change course. I will not say now exactly who we may target, or with what measure, but Moscow should be clear that we will use these new powers to maximum effect if it pursues its aggressive intent towards Ukraine. Nothing is off the table.
We are also standing with our Ukrainian friends by providing vital support to help them defend themselves. That is why we are supplying the country with defensive, anti-tank missiles, and deploying a training team of British personnel. We have already trained over 21,000 members of the Ukrainian army through Operation Orbital. In addition, we are stepping up our investment in Ukraine’s future, ramping up support for trade up to £3.5 billion, including £1.7 billion to boost Ukraine’s naval capability. We will continue to stand united with Ukraine.
It might seem hard to believe that in the 21st century the citizens of a proud, sovereign, European democracy are living under the threat of invasion. We know from the lessons of history that this course of action would benefit no-one. I do not believe that ordinary Russian citizens want to enter into an intractable quagmire of needless death and destruction that could rival the Soviet-Afghan war or the conflict in Chechnya. Indeed, we have no quarrel whatsoever with the Russian people, only with the policies pursued by its leader. It is time for the Kremlin to step back from the brink, to de-escalate and to enter into meaningful dialogue. If it does not, it should be in no doubt: we will be ready to use the powers that I have set out today to maximum effect. We will join our allies and partners to ensure that such reckless action will bring strategic consequences at a massive cost. We will defend freedom, democracy and the rule of law.
I commend this statement to the House.

David Lammy: I thank the right hon. Lady for advance sight of her statement, and for our discussions on this issue. I am very grateful.
As we in the Opposition have made clear since this crisis began, we stand in resolute support of Ukraine’s sovereignty and in opposition to Russian aggression. We support the essential international diplomatic efforts  to achieve de-escalation and the defensive support provided to Ukraine. I said it in Kyiv two weeks ago, and I say it again now: we on these Benches believe that it is important to send a united message from the whole House. That is why we welcome moves by the Government to lay the groundwork for a robust and extensive package of sanctions against Russia in the event of any incursion or attack on Ukraine.
We believe that these measures must be broad, severe and comprehensive. They must apply widely to crucial sectors of the Russian economy, without gaps or loopholes.
They must target corrupt elites who store their money in our country. They must target not just relevant Russian entities, but those who enable, support, service or facilitate their activities. Can the Foreign Secretary confirm that UK subsidiaries of any new sanctioned targets would not be carved out of scope? We know that some oligarchs have used their wealth to seek influence and protect themselves from criticism, so may I ask for her assurance that these measures will be applied without fear or favour? Given that the measures were pre-briefed and include broad categories of potential targets, may I ask what assessment she has made of the risks of asset flight, and what steps she has taken to protect against it?
These sanctions are conditional on Russia’s actions. Their purpose is to form a serious deterrent, which when matched by unified action and the work of the G7, NATO and the OSCE, will make President Putin think again. However, there is much more that we must do irrespective of the decisions made by President Putin—things that it should not have taken an army threatening Ukraine to put in place; things that the Opposition have repeatedly urged the Government to address. For years, the Labour party and colleagues across the House have raised the alarm about the role of dirty money in keeping Putin in power.
For too long, our defences have been let down at home while the Government looked abroad. Despite warning after warning and report after report, the Government have been asleep at the wheel. London is the destination of choice for the world’s kleptocrats. We are home to the services and enablers who help corrupt elites to hide their ill-gotten wealth. We have a system of corporate transparency that permits the products of larceny on a grand scale to be hidden under our noses—and the result is the embarrassing spectacle of President Biden being warned that the widespread presence of suspect Russian money in the UK could jeopardise Britain’s response to this crisis. This is not a matter simply of individuals, welcome though that action is; it is about fixing a broken system—our openness to fraud and money laundering, our inadequate regulation of political donations, our lax mechanisms of corporate governance, and our weakness to foreign interference.
I therefore ask the right hon. Lady the following questions. Where is the economic crime Bill that the Government have just pulled? Where is the comprehensive reform of Companies House? Where is the register of overseas entities Bill? Where is the foreign agent registration law? Where are the new counter-espionage laws? Where are the new rules on political donations? Where is the reform of tier 1 golden visas? Where is the replacement of the outdated Computer Misuse Act 1990? Where is the reform of the Electoral Commission, and why does  the Government’s Elections Bill make these problems worse by enabling political donations from donors based overseas?
The right hon. Lady’s movement on sanctions is welcome, but there is much, much more to do. These steps at home are not distinct from sanctions or diplomacy abroad. They must form part of a unified and coherent response—one that has been urged consistently by the right hon. Member for New Forest East (Dr Lewis), the Chair of the Intelligence and Security Committee. If she truly wants to fix the problem, she must start there.

Elizabeth Truss: First, may I thank the shadow Foreign Secretary for his constructive approach? It is vital that all Members of the House demonstrate their support for freedom and democracy in the face of severe aggression by the Russian regime, not just on the borders of Ukraine, but through Belarus, into the western Balkans, and across the world. I will take forward the united message that I have heard from the whole House to our friends in Ukraine, who very much welcome the support that they have been offered by the United Kingdom—the economic support, the support in terms of defensive weaponry, and the support in the face of Russian aggression.
The package that we are putting forward in legislation will be in place by 10 February, which means that we are able to enact wide-ranging sanctions in broad categories that really target anybody who is providing strategic or economic support to the Russian regime. There will be nowhere to hide, and I am very clear that we will apply those sanctions without fear or favour.
We have already taken steps to tighten up our regime on corruption and illicit finance through the Criminal Finances Act 2017, the global anti-corruption sanctions regimes that we have put in place and our review of all tier 1 visas granted before 5 April.[Official Report, 20 April 2022, Vol. 712, c. 3MC.] We will also be introducing the economic crime Bill. The Prime Minister committed to that at the summit for democracy with President Biden at the end of last year. Let me assure the House that our priority is the defence of freedom and democracy. That comes before any short-term economic interest not only for our country, but for the whole of Europe. We must wean ourselves and others off dependence on Russian gas. We must target the criminal and corrupt money, and that is what we are determined to do with this extension of our sanctions regime, the most radical that we have put together yet.

Thomas Tugendhat: It is a pleasure to hear from my right hon. Friend the Foreign Secretary about the tightening of the sanctions regime. She knows that the Foreign Affairs Committee has called for that for four years. It is extremely welcome that she is looking hard at dirty money, and here I find myself in agreement with the right hon. Member for Tottenham (Mr Lammy). The need to clean up the dirty money in our economy is not just about doing the right thing and standing up alongside the people of Ukraine, but about standing up for the British people, defending ourselves against the corruption that flows through our system, and making sure that our houses, our homes, are not being exploited to pay murderers on behalf of a dictator. This is not a foreign problem; this is a problem for the United Kingdom to deal with at home. The strongest thing that we can do to defend Ukraine is to defend ourselves against filth and corruption in our City.

Elizabeth Truss: My hon. Friend is right in what he says about the work that the Foreign Affairs Committee has done to champion this issue. This is why we are introducing a much tougher sanctions regime on Russia. As I have said, we will be bringing forward the economic crime Bill to add to the work that we already doing to tackle illicit finance.

Alyn Smith: I, too, am grateful for sight of the statement, which we support. I have already said in the House that the SNP will be part of the coalition to defend Ukraine and our democracy. It is not a blank cheque, because we will want to see some details, but hon. Members can rest assured that we will stand behind the measures.
I would be grateful for reassurance that Scottish limited partnerships will be included in the package, because they are a clear risk in terms of dubious transactions, and that property transactions will be part of it as well. I also ask for reassurance that there will be co-ordination with the EU precisely to avoid asset flight, given that the measures have been telegraphed.
I have another question, to which I do want an answer. I have pledged the SNP’s support for the measures, but I want a statement from the Foreign Secretary in response to Pippa Crerar, the political editor of the Daily Mirror, who is an impeccable journalist with impeccable sources. She reports that there was supposed to be a call between the Prime Minister and President Putin today but that:
“When the Gray report landed the Russians were asked to shift the time—but they couldn’t. So it’s off…”.
What in the name of hell impression does that give to our friends and our allies if it is true—perhaps it is not? I would be grateful for an assurance that it is not true, or if it is true, I would be grateful for an assurance that that conversation will take place.

Elizabeth Truss: I can reassure the hon. Gentleman that absolutely nothing is off the table in terms of who and which organisations we will target with these sanctions. We are very committed to working with our partners, including the EU. We had a big discussion at the G7 in Liverpool about the sanctions regime. I have had discussions since then with Josep Borrell and my EU counterparts to ensure that we are fully co-ordinated, as well as with the US. The Prime Minister will shortly be speaking to President Putin. As I have said, I will be travelling to Moscow in the next fortnight to speak to my counterpart Sergey Lavrov.

Julian Lewis: Cutting out a cancer is both painful and dangerous. Is the Foreign Secretary aware that the previous Intelligence and Security Committee, in its Russia report, drew on the expertise of Edward Lucas, who today has a comment column in The Times headed, “Britain has become addicted to dirty money”? May I suggest that if she wants to be sure that the cancer will indeed be cut out of the body politic and the country’s wider economy, she could do far worse than to consult Mr Lucas before she finalises her proposed sanctions and their structures?

Elizabeth Truss: I thank my right hon. Friend for his suggestion. I would be happy to meet the gentleman he mentions.

Stephen Kinnock: Six months ago, the Government said that they were finalising their report into how more than 700 Russian millionaires were fast-tracked for British residency via their so-called golden visa scheme. Can the Foreign Secretary tell the House when that long-overdue report will be published? Does she agree that the reason for the delay relates directly to the £4 million that has been donated to the Conservative party by seven individuals who have deep and highly dubious links to the Kremlin?

Elizabeth Truss: We are reviewing the tier 1 visas that were granted before 5 April.[Official Report, 20 April 2022, Vol. 712, c. 4MC.] I am sure the Home Secretary will have more to say about that in due course.

Tobias Ellwood: I welcome the statement and the wider steps that the UK is taking to support Ukraine. My concern is that western tactical responses are playing into Putin’s strategy. Seeking meetings with him, for example, plays to his self-importance; any sanctions actioned will drive Russia ever closer to China, which is exactly what he wants; and sending NATO reinforcements around Ukraine, but not in it, is not the way to deter an attack.
I worry that we are missing the bigger picture. Putin is using the Ukraine crisis to realign Russia militarily, economically and geopolitically with China, which has massive security implications for the west. Does the Foreign Secretary agree that the only way to halt an invasion and check that dangerous trajectory is to support Ukraine militarily? This is our Cuban missile crisis. I encourage Britain to lead the call to deploy an offensive alliance and stand up to Putin’s aggression.

Elizabeth Truss: Our approach in dealing with the issue of Russian aggression is both deterrence and diplomacy. That is why the UK has been at the forefront in supplying defensive weapons to Ukraine, training up Ukrainian forces and working with our allies, many of whom are also supplying defensive support into Ukraine. But we have to be clear that there is a difference between a country that is a member of NATO, which has a security guarantee—Baltic states such as Estonia, where UK troops are in place—and the situation in Ukraine.
In my view, the best way of deterring Vladimir Putin from an invasion of Ukraine is by making it very clear, first, that that will not be simple or easy and is likely to result in a quagmire, as we saw in the Soviet-Afghan war or in Chechnya; and, secondly, that there will be severe economic consequences—and those are, of course, sanctions that target oligarchs and companies close to Vladimir Putin. Also, not going ahead with Nord Stream 2 is very important from the Russian point of view.
It is important that we talk to Russia and communicate these messages. We will not resile from our position on the protection of the open-door policy into NATO, but we will communicate directly with Russia so that it understands those messages.

Kevan Jones: The Foreign Secretary comes to the House, talks tough and says that the Government have a readiness to act. It is four years since the Foreign Affairs Committee produced its “Moscow’s Gold” report, which outlined Russian corruption in the UK. It is two years since the Intelligence and Security Committee published its report on Russia,  which outlined similar concerns. Why have the Government not acted in those years? If we are going to implement sanctions, how can we believe that they will be effective without strong political will and the determination to make them work?

Elizabeth Truss: We have taken a number of measures in recent years: namely, the Criminal Finances Act 2017 and the review we are conducting of visas. I am saying that the most far-reaching sanctions regime will be in place by 10 February, making sure that Russia understands that there is a severe package ready to be in place. Of course, I am absolutely prepared to do what is necessary to make those costs severe.

John Whittingdale: My right hon. Friend is right that our argument is with President Putin and his cronies, not with the Russian people, but she will be aware that Russian citizens, and, indeed, many in eastern Ukraine, are able only to access Russian propaganda from state-owned or oligarch-owned media channels, while independent journalists are put into prison and the internet is censored. Will she look at what more can be done, perhaps through the BBC World Service and the tech platforms, to ensure that the Russian people can access objective and factual reporting?

Elizabeth Truss: My right hon. Friend makes an excellent point. We are looking at all the channels that we can communicate through directly to the Russian people as well as to the Russian Government. That is something that I will look to do on my visit to Russia.

Chris Bryant: This is just weak, weak, weak. Honestly, since 2010, when the Conservatives came to power and they first started saying that they wanted to press the reset button with Putin, we have been weak, ambivalent and vacillating towards the Russian Federation. We have no quarrel with the Russian people; it is with President Putin. It does not work to try to look tough when the Government have refused to deal with the issue of tier 1 visas. It is shocking that the Foreign Secretary does not even have a proper answer to that question this afternoon. This has been going on for ages; we have been giving them out to thousands of Russian oligarchs. She still does not have an answer—maybe she will have now—to the question about unexplained wealth orders. If we cannot make them, how will this new legislation make any difference? This is far, far too late. It is not a question of whether the horse has bolted; they have invited the horse in, sat it down at the table and given it plenty to eat.

Elizabeth Truss: I suggest that the hon. Gentleman goes to Ukraine—

Chris Bryant: I have been!

Elizabeth Truss: I suggest he goes to Ukraine and asks the Ukrainian Government which of their allies they think is giving them the most support. The answer is that the United Kingdom has supplied more defensive weapons to Ukraine than any of our NATO—[Interruption.]

Nigel Evans: Order. Please, the question has been asked; let us hear the answer.

Elizabeth Truss: The answer is that the Ukrainian Government are very grateful for the support that the United Kingdom is giving. Of all the European NATO allies, we are the largest supplier of defensive weapons to Ukraine. We have helped to train up the Ukrainian forces, we are providing economic support, and the sanctions package that I am announcing today goes far further than the EU sanctions regime which, presumably, the hon. Gentleman supports.

Liam Fox: I very much welcome what my right hon. Friend has said today. It is quite understandable and right that our focus is currently on Ukraine, but is not this just part of a bigger picture? What we have is a Russia that is trying to build an arc of instability around NATO, from the Arctic through the Baltic to the Balkans and the Caucasus. Does this not require a sustained, consistent and strong policy of deterrence, using diplomatic, economic and military elements? Would it not be a good start if all members of NATO carried their fair share of the defence spending burden?

Elizabeth Truss: My right hon. Friend is absolutely right. That is why the UK is supplying support from the high north through to the Baltics and through to the Black sea, backing up NATO as the largest defence spender of all the European NATO allies. That is being recognised. Contrary to what those on the Opposition Benches say, that is being recognised by our allies in the Baltic, by our allies in eastern Europe, and by our allies in Ukraine.

Layla Moran: We cannot sanction what we cannot see, and while I welcome this statement, I would like some clarity on whether this new legislation will finally include a register of beneficial owners for overseas entities. The Foreign Secretary will know that many of these oligarchs hide their money, particularly in UK property. The press release from the FCDO says that it is going to leave Russia “nowhere to hide”, so is that loophole finally going to be closed?

Elizabeth Truss: The legislation we are putting forward is about being able to target entities and individuals that are of strategic or economic interest in the Russian state. We are broadening it out much more widely than before, when we would have been able to apply sanctions only to those who were actively destabilising Ukraine. We can target asset freezing, and we can target the ability to enter the UK of those individuals and entities. The register of interests that the hon. Lady is talking about is part of the economic crime Bill that is being brought forward by the Treasury, and the Prime Minister has committed to that happening this year.

Mark Pritchard: I welcome the Foreign Secretary’s statement today, and the announcement of new powers. They are long overdue, but I am glad that it is this Government who are delivering them, and doing so by 10 February. That will also be welcomed by the Rada in Kyiv and by the Government of Ukraine. Is it not the case that Ukraine is not NATO’s border and not the EU’s border, but that it is democracy’s border, which is why Ukraine matters? I thank her for her good offices in working hard to galvanise opinion in Washington and across EU capitals to ensure that we have that strong defence, strong deterrence and strong diplomacy.

Elizabeth Truss: I thank my hon. Friend for his work as chair of the all-party parliamentary group on Ukraine. Ukraine is vital. It is a freedom-loving democracy in Europe. If we do not work hard—we are—to defend Ukraine from Russian aggression, that will simply encourage aggressors around the world. This is not just a regional security issue, important though it is; it is a global security issue.

Stewart McDonald: Like my hon. Friend the Member for Stirling (Alyn Smith), I support much of what is in the statement. The statement says that the Secretary of State will not name who or what may be targeted with sanctions, but can she clarify that whatever the new legislation looks like, it will enable the Government to take action against Kremlin mouthpieces and outlets in this country, for example RT UK?

Elizabeth Truss: As I said, I am not going to talk about the individuals or entities that could be targeted, but it will be anyone who is of strategic or economic interest to the Russian state. The hon. Gentleman can imagine that that is quite a broad list of people and entities.

Alec Shelbrooke: My right hon. Friend will know well that Kyiv was the original capital of Rus, and was an area of fabulous wealth and education until invaded by the Khans. The Russians and the Rus called them the Tatars. Many reports have come out that tens of thousands of Tatars have disappeared from Crimea. That human rights atrocity cannot be properly investigated. Does my right hon. Friend agree that we must try to find out exactly what has been happening to the Tatar population?
Equally, for those who do not feel it is important or that we should somehow let Russia have the Russian empire, as President Putin outlined in his essay last year, that goes against every principle of freedom and democracy of standing up to fascist Governments who want to ethnically cleanse people over centuries of hatred.

Elizabeth Truss: My right. Friend is completely right. Let us remember that Russia signed up to Ukraine’s sovereignty and territorial integrity in the 1994 Budapest agreement. It signed up to that, and what it is seeking to do is renege on its commitments, stoke aggression and seek to undermine Ukrainian democracy in a variety of ways, whether by false flag operations or cyber-attacks or by trying to install puppet regimes in Kyiv.

Chi Onwurah: A few minutes ago, the Prime Minister stood at the Dispatch Box and said, in response to questions on partygate, that his is the Government who are bringing countries together “to stand up against Putin”, but just last week, our closest allies went public with their concerns over Russian influence in this country. Will the Secretary of State admit that her Government have undermined our diplomatic status and our national security by refusing for so long to take seriously Russian influence and dirty money?

Elizabeth Truss: I do not accept the hon. Lady’s talking down of the UK’s role. It was at the G7 meeting in Liverpool that we agreed with our allies, including the United States, the EU and Japan, that the Russian  regime would face severe consequences of an incursion into Ukraine. That language has now been adopted by all our allies and partners. We have led the way in providing defensive weaponry to Ukraine. We have led the way today with our package of economic sanctions, which go beyond what we were able to do as a member of the EU.

Alicia Kearns: The time for deterrence diplomacy is now. Over the last two weeks, from Kramatorsk, to Donetsk, from Kyiv to Sarajevo and Mostar, civilians have been clear with me that they believe the west will either save them or there will be bloodshed in Europe. What consideration has my right hon. Friend given to blacklisting Russian banks? Will she look at joining the US in sanctioning Milorad Dodik in Bosnia, whose ethno-nationalist, separatist, genocide-denying agitation also risks bringing bloodshed to Europe?

Elizabeth Truss: I know that my hon. Friend has recently visited the western Balkans. We are absolutely looking at what more we can do on sanctions on the regime there, as well as at how we target some of the Russian entities that she talked about.

Jeremy Corbyn: Any war on the border between Ukraine and Russia will be utterly disastrous for the people of Ukraine, the people of Russia and the future of peace throughout the whole continent of Europe. When the Foreign Secretary travels to Moscow to have discussions with the Russian Government, I hope that she will be able to reassert the agreements reached in the 1990s that recognised Ukrainian independence, but will she also try to take the whole thing a stage further with a new disarmament agreement with Russia, revisiting the previous agreements? Will she ensure that the British state is represented at the Vienna convention on nuclear weapons in the middle of March, as a way to take forward the de-escalation of stress and threats and thereby to wind down the tensions on the border? If we carry on building up massive numbers of troops on both sides of the border, something awful is going to happen and it will be very hard to get out of it.

Elizabeth Truss: Let us be clear: it is the Russian regime that has amassed the tanks and troops on the Ukrainian border. It is the Russian regime that has escalated aggression, and not just towards Ukraine but through Belarus and in the western Balkans. It is the Russian regime that needs to step back before it ends up entering into what could be—I agree with the right hon. Gentleman on this point—a very serious quagmire, with appalling consequences for the people of both Ukraine and Russia. That is the point that I will make when I travel to Moscow in the next fortnight.

Bob Seely: I thank the Secretary of State for her very robust approach. This is not a criticism of her, but we still lack a comprehensive and coherent approach to dealing with Russia’s hybrid war. Frankly, this is a decade too late—so there is no criticism of her—and it is clear that deterrence is not working. My question is on facilitators, which a few other people have mentioned. Does she understand how corrosive it is to have young UK service personnel—ordinary kids in uniform—in forward positions in the Baltics while in  London a morally vacant and corrupted class of lawyers, bankers, reputation launderers and kompromat-style private investigators coin it, serving the needs of a parasitic, murderous oligarch class that is part of a neo-fascist regime that now threatens war in Europe? What are we doing about this corrupt facilitator class?

Elizabeth Truss: As I outlined earlier, we have taken action against illicit finance and corruption. We have established the National Cyber Security Centre and we are working hard to support Ukraine on the cyber-attacks it faces from the Russian regime, and I have announced today a sanctions regime that is by far the toughest we have ever had against Russia.

Hilary Benn: The Foreign Secretary’s announcement shows that the Government can act speedily when they want to—these measures will be on the statute book by 10 February—so will she explain to the House why we are still waiting for all the measures referred to by the shadow Foreign Secretary, my right hon. Friend the Member for Tottenham (Mr Lammy), in his response to the statement? Why can those measures not be acted on as speedily as the sanctions that the Foreign Secretary has announced to the House today?

Elizabeth Truss: As I said, we put through the Criminal Finances Act 2017, our global anti-corruption sanctions regime. We are reviewing the tier 1 visas and will introduce the economic crime Bill, which Her Majesty’s Treasury is working on.

Daniel Kawczynski: The Foreign Secretary is absolutely correct to highlight that our partners in central and eastern Europe—Poland and the Baltic states—recognise the leadership that Britain is providing with regard to these new tensions, but they also recognise the increasing divergence between London and Berlin in how to tackle Russia over this nefarious behaviour. Does she agree that it is important now to go back to our German partners and re-emphasise the need for them to stop the Nord Stream 2 pipeline, which gives the Russians an umbilical cord to the heart of Europe? We import less than 1.5% of our gas requirements from Russia, whereas the Germans import more than 60% of their energy requirements from Moscow.

Elizabeth Truss: I had a discussion with my colleague Foreign Minister Baerbock last week about precisely this issue, and I welcome the statements from her and Chancellor Scholz about Nord Stream 2, in which they were very clear that it will not go ahead in the event of a Russian incursion. We do need to reduce dependence on Russian gas. I welcome the work that the United States is doing to look at how supplies can be augmented, and we are working with partners across the middle east. This is a strategic issue for Europe and we do need to reduce dependence on Russian gas—there is no doubt about it.

Anna McMorrin: More than £4 million has been donated to Tory MPs, including to a quarter of the current Cabinet, by Russian-linked individuals—this is dirty money from an evil regime. Is that why the Government have so far failed to take the Russian threat to our democracy seriously? How will what has been announced today help? Will the Foreign  Secretary pledge to this House to fly at least business class to Moscow in the next couple of weeks, instead of using half a million pounds of taxpayers’ money, as she did when she flew to Australia?

Elizabeth Truss: We have Government planes for a reason: for Government Ministers to use on Government business.

Robert Jenrick: In addition to targeted sanctions against Kremlin-linked individuals, our friends and allies in the US Senate are considering three further steps. The first is sanctioning Russian state banks, to prevent the flow of foreign capital. The second is having export controls on key technologies that are useful to the Kremlin. Thirdly, a number of Senators, led by Ted Cruz, are proposing a return to sanctions against Nord Stream itself, and related entities and individuals linked to the organisation. Will each of those be included in the Bill that my right hon. Friend intends to bring forward?

Elizabeth Truss: As I have said, the legislation we are bringing forward is very wide-ranging and targets a number of sectors and interests in relation to the Kremlin, and I assure my right hon. Friend that nothing is off the table.

Ben Bradshaw: Our American allies have just issued an unprecedented rebuke to the British Government, saying that any new sanctions would be worthless as long as London remains the main international laundromat for dirty Russian money. I remember that this Prime Minister tried to stop the publication of the Russia report and removed the Whip from the right hon. Member for New Forest East (Dr Lewis), who now chairs the Intelligence and Security Committee, when his own patsy candidate failed to get the job. I am still not clear, however, whether the Foreign Secretary is reinstating the economic crime Bill, because that has not been said on the record from the Dispatch Box before. If she is, can the admirable Lord Agnew have his job back, please?

Elizabeth Truss: As I have said already this afternoon, we remain committed to bringing in the economic crime Bill, and the Prime Minister committed that that would be done this year.

Richard Drax: My right hon. Friend the Member for North Somerset (Dr Fox) rather took my thunder, but this is such an important point that I would like to reiterate: if ever there was a reason to take a fresh look at NATO and its role and responsibilities, this threat by Russia of an invasion in Europe must be it. Has the Foreign Secretary spoken to the other NATO countries that are not spending the 2%? Has she been given reassurance that they will spend 2%? If they have not given her that, what does she intend to do to make them spend 2% of their GDP?

Elizabeth Truss: We are already spending more than 2% of our GDP; we are the largest European NATO supplier of troops and security around Europe, and we want to see others step up, because, as my hon. Friend says, these threats are getting worse. We have seen an increase in aggression and we need to see all NATO allies step up and fulfil their commitments.

Caroline Lucas: The Government’s attempt to claim some kind of moral high ground on Russian sanctions is sheer hypocrisy when the right hon. Lady’s party has accepted donations from oligarchs and her Government have turned a blind eye to the Kremlin meddling in our democracy and have held open the door to Putin’s cronies to have their money laundered in London. Can she tell us whether that is why there is still this delay to the promised register of overseas entities, which would shine a light on Russian ownership of British property? In her replies to the right hon. Member for Exeter (Mr Bradshaw) and the hon. Member for Oxford West and Abingdon (Layla Moran), she showed a remarkable lack of urgency on whether the economic crime Bill might be introduced sometime this year. That is not good enough when we are talking about what pressure can be brought to bear on Russia now.

Elizabeth Truss: I had hoped that the hon. Lady would welcome the fact that we are introducing our toughest ever sanctions regime on Russia, which will be in place by 10 February. We are acting with urgency to deal with this crisis.

Greg Smith: I warmly welcome the actions my right hon. Friend is taking. Nobody should think they are safe from sanctions, so will she confirm that this new legislation will ensure that any company of interest to the Kremlin will be able to be targeted so there can be nowhere for Putin’s oligarchs to hide?

Elizabeth Truss: We will be able to target any company linked to the Russian state that engages in business of economic significance to the Russian state or in a sector of strategic significance. We will be able not just to target those entities but to go after those who own or control them, so the net is very wide.

Ruth Cadbury: I am going to give the Foreign Secretary a third chance. Does she agree that the UK Government will continue to look weak on the Russian threat while Tory MPs and Members of the other House continue to accept cash from Russian-linked individuals?

Elizabeth Truss: I had hoped that the hon. Lady would welcome the package of tough sanctions that we are introducing today. In fact, that is what our allies across the world are saying.

Nickie Aiken: I thank the Foreign Secretary for her statement. She is absolutely right that we need to widen the breadth of sanctions on Russia to reflect the reality on the ground. In my constituency those realities are very clear to see—the dirty money invested week in, week out. Can she assure me that this Government will follow through on the legislation and ensure that the financial and professional services involved will be held to account, and that we follow a “banks and tanks” strategy in fighting corruption and Russia’s aggression towards Ukraine and across Europe?

Elizabeth Truss: We have taken steps to deal with illicit finance and corrupt elites through the Criminal Finances Act 2017 and our anti-corruption sanctions regime. I have already talked about the commitment to  introduce legislation through the economic crime Bill. Today is about showing that the UK is ready with a package of severe sanctions that can target any organisation or individual who is remotely linked or of economic significance to the Russian state, showing there will be nowhere to hide in the event of an incursion into Ukraine. This is about making sure that those economic consequences are as severe as possible. My hon. Friend makes excellent points on the broader issue, but today we are talking about deterring Vladimir Putin from an incursion into Ukraine.

Andrew Slaughter: Why have the Government delayed the economic crime Bill? Why are they doing nothing to stop lawfare in the UK courts? Why is the Serious Fraud Office being sued by oligarchs rather than indicting them? Without the laws, the courts and the prosecutors to tackle corruption and dirty money here in Londongrad, are the Foreign Secretary’s threats not empty and vacuous? Will she ensure that the Tories’ Russian gold finds its way back to Moscow?

Elizabeth Truss: I have already given the steps that Her Majesty’s Treasury and the Ministry of Justice are taking on the issues that the hon. Gentleman mentioned. The sanctions regime is under direct Foreign Office control. That is why we are taking action as soon as we can, by 10 February, to get these sanctions in place so that we can exercise them in the event of an incursion.

Luke Evans: I am grateful to the Foreign Secretary for her announcement on sanctions. She said in her statement that the UK will join discussions at the UN Security Council to apply further pressure on Russia. Could she explain what she hopes to gain out of this and what success would look like?

Elizabeth Truss: Russia is a member of the permanent Security Council and needs to be held to account for its aggressive actions with respect to Ukraine.

Dave Doogan: I, too, welcome the broad tenet of the Foreign Secretary’s statement, the details of which included fast jets going to bolster NATO forces in Europe. Has she had discussions with the Ministry of Defence to ensure that when, quite appropriately, bolstering Ukraine’s eastern flank, we do not create any problems for the United Kingdom’s northern flank by redeploying quick reaction alert Typhoon aircraft from either Lossiemouth or Coningsby?

Elizabeth Truss: I am in regular touch with the Defence Secretary to make sure that, of course, we protect UK defence interests at the same time as we provide air support, particularly around the Black sea region, to make sure that we are working with our NATO allies to keep a free and safe Europe.

Jonathan Edwards: President Putin is reported as saying:
“Whoever becomes the leader in this sphere”—
of artificial intelligence—
“will become the ruler of the world.”
Given the dangers posed by lethal autonomous weapons, will the Foreign Secretary explain why the British Government seem reluctant to support efforts to place legally binding instruments to control their development and use?

Elizabeth Truss: We are shortly about to launch our international tech strategy, which will talk precisely about setting standards in areas like artificial intelligence and quantum. It is important that it is the free world that is setting those standards rather than their being dictated by authoritarian regimes.

Margaret Ferrier: There are concerns in the food industry that a Russian invasion of Ukraine could lead to food shortages in the UK, as Ukraine is becoming a significant exporter of goods such as cereal products to the UK. What plans do the Government have to protect UK food supplies if Putin opts to disregard sanctions and presses ahead?

Elizabeth Truss: We have an important trade relationship with Ukraine, which is why it is so important that we support Ukraine economically. That is why we have built in extra trade co-operation, and why it is so important that we deter the Russian Government from an incursion into Ukraine.

Nigel Evans: I would like to thank the Foreign Secretary for her statement and for taking five minutes shorter than an hour to answer questions.

Vaccination: Condition of Deployment

Sajid Javid: With permission, Mr Deputy Speaker, I would like to update the House on vaccination as a condition of deployment.
Last Thursday, we woke up to a new phase of this pandemic as we returned to plan A. People are no longer advised to work from home. Face coverings are no longer mandatory. Organisations no longer have to require the NHS covid pass. And, from today, there is no limit on the number of visitors allowed in care homes.
Week by week, we are carefully moving our covid response from being one of rules and restrictions back to being one of personal responsibility. We are able to do this because of the defences that we have built throughout this pandemic—in vaccines and antivirals, in testing and surveillance.
We know, of course, that covid-19 is here to stay. While some countries remain stuck on a zero-covid strategy and others think about how they will safely open up, here we are showing the way forward and showing the world what successfully living with covid looks like. The principle we are applying is the same principle that has guided our actions throughout this pandemic, and that is to achieve the maximum protection of public health with the minimum intrusion in people’s everyday lives. To me, that is what learning to live with covid is all about.
Even with this progress, we must of course remain vigilant. While overall cases and hospitalisations continue to fall, we are seeing rises in cases in primary and secondary schoolchildren. Part of living with covid means living with new variants and subvariants. Our world-class health surveillance operations are currently keeping a close watch on a subvariant of omicron called BA.2, which the UK Health Security Agency has marked as a variant under investigation—one below a variant of concern. Some 1,072 genomically confirmed cases of BA.2 have been identified in England. While early data from Denmark suggests that BA.2 may be more transmissible, there is currently no evidence that it is any more severe. In addition, an initial analysis of vaccine effectiveness against BA.2 reveals a similar level of protection against symptomatic infection compared with BA.1—the original variant of omicron—which underlines, once again, the importance of being vaccinated against covid-19 and the imperative to get the booster if you are eligible.
Nowhere is vaccination more important than in our health and social care system. Throughout this pandemic, we have always put the safety of vulnerable people first, and we always will do. It has always been this Government’s expectation that everyone gets vaccinated against covid-19, especially those people working in health and social care settings, who have a professional duty to do so. When designing policy, there will always be a balance of opportunities and risks, and responsible policy making must take that balance into account.
When we consulted on vaccination as a condition of deployment in health and wider social care settings, the evidence showed that the vaccine effectiveness against infection from the dominant delta variant was between  65% and 80%, depending on which of the vaccines people had received. It was clear that vaccination was the very best way to keep vulnerable people safe from delta because, quite simply, if you are not infected, you cannot infect someone else. Balanced against this clear benefit was the risk that there would always be some people who would not do the responsible thing and would choose to remain unvaccinated—and, in doing so, choose to walk away from their jobs in health and care. Despite its being their choice to leave their jobs, we have to consider the impact on the workforce in NHS and social care settings, especially at a time when we already have a shortage of workers and near full employment across the economy.
In December, I argued—and this House overwhelmingly agreed—that the weight of clinical evidence in favour of vaccination as a condition of deployment outweighed the risks to the workforce. It was the right policy at the time, supported by the clinical evidence, and the Government make no apology for it. It has also proved to be the right policy in retrospect, given the severity of delta. Since we launched the consultation on vaccination as a condition of deployment in the NHS and wider social care settings in September, there has been a net increase of 127,000 people working across the NHS who have done the right thing and got jabbed, becoming part of the 19 out of 20 NHS workers who have done their professional duty. During the same time, we have also seen a net increase of 32,000 people getting jabbed in social care—22,000 people in care homes and 10,000 people working in domiciliary care.
I am grateful to the millions of health and care colleagues who have come forward to do the right thing, and the health and care leaders who have supported them. Together, they have played a vital part in raising our wall of protection even higher, and keeping thousands of vulnerable people out of hospital this winter.
When we laid the November regulations, the delta variant represented 99% of infections. A few short weeks later, we discovered omicron, which has now become the dominant variant in the UK, representing over 99% of infections. Incredibly, over a third of the UK’s total number of covid-19 cases have happened in just the last eight weeks. Given that delta has been replaced, it is only right that our policy on vaccination as a condition of deployment be reviewed. I therefore asked for fresh advice, including from the UK Health Security Agency and England’s chief medical officer.
In weighing up the risks and opportunity of this policy once again, there are two new factors. The first is that our population as a whole is now better protected against hospitalisation from covid-19. Omicron’s increased infectiousness means that at the peak of the recent winter spike one in 15 people had a covid-19 infection, according to the Office for National Statistics. Around 24% of England’s population has had at least one positive covid-19 test, and as of today in England 84% of people over 12 have had a primary course of vaccines and 64% have been boosted, including over 90% of over-50s. The second factor is that the dominant variant, omicron, is intrinsically less severe. When taken together with the first factor—greater population protection—the evidence shows that the risk of presentation to emergency care or hospital admission with omicron is approximately half of that for delta.
Given those dramatic changes, it is not only right but responsible to revisit the balance of risks and opportunities that guided our original decision last year. While vaccination remains our very best line of defence against covid-19, I believe that it is no longer proportionate to require vaccination as a condition of deployment through statute. So today I am announcing that we will launch a consultation on ending vaccination as a condition of deployment in health and all social care settings. Subject to the responses and the will of this House, the Government will revoke the regulations. I have always been clear that our rules must remain proportionate and balanced, and of course, should we see another dramatic change in the virus, it would be only responsible to review the policy again.
Some basic facts remain. Vaccines save lives, and everyone working in health and social care has a professional duty to be vaccinated against covid-19. So although we will seek to end vaccination as a condition of deployment in health and social care settings using statute, I am taking the following steps. First, I have written to professional regulators operating across health to ask them to urgently review current guidance to registrants on vaccinations including covid-19 to emphasise their professional responsibilities in this respect. Secondly, I have asked the NHS to review its policies on the hiring of new staff and deployment of existing staff, taking into account their vaccination status. Thirdly, I have asked my officials to consult on updating my Department’s code of practice, which applies to all Care Quality Commission-registered providers of healthcare and social care settings in England. They will consult on strengthening requirements in relation to covid-19, including reflecting the latest advice on infection protection control.
Finally, our vital work to promote vaccine uptake continues. I am sure that the whole House will join me in thanking NHS trusts and care providers for their relentless efforts in putting patient safety first. I also thank the shadow Health Secretary and the Opposition for their support of the Government’s approach to this policy area. One of the reasons that we have the highest vaccine uptake rates in the world is the confidence in our vaccines that comes from this place and from both sides of the House. We may not agree on everything, but when it comes to vaccination, together we have put the national interest first. It is now in our national interest to embark on this new phase of the pandemic, when we keep the British people safe while showing the world how we can successfully learn to live with covid-19.
I commend this statement to the House.

Wes Streeting: I thank the Secretary of State for advance sight of his statement, and also for his regular contact and briefings on this issue at both ministerial and official level. He is right to say that Labour worked with the Government to ensure maximum take-up of the vaccine across health and social care, and we do not regret that decision. Indeed, we welcome the decision that he has come to today.
Let me be clear from the start: vaccines are safe, effective, and the best defence that we have against the virus. Whether compulsory or not, it remains the professional duty of all NHS and care workers to get themselves vaccinated, just as it is the duty of all of us to protect ourselves, our loved ones, and our society from the greater spread of infections and hospitalisations,  and from the need for harsh restrictions that impact on our lives, livelihoods and liberties. The debate over this policy is about whether the state should mandate the vaccine for health and care staff, or whether it should take a voluntary approach. It is not a discussion about the need to get vaccinated, the arguments for which are overwhelmingly one-sided. With five million people in the UK still to have their first jab, we cannot afford to take our foot off the pedal in getting the message out.
Labour Members supported the initial policy in early December. Since then we have seen a significant increase in vaccinations among NHS staff, with tens of thousands more staff now protected. I say an enormous thank you to the NHS trusts that worked tirelessly to persuade hesitant staff of the need to get vaccinated, and to those colleagues who have given up considerable time to have supportive conversations with their peers. I thank the health unions and royal colleges which, despite their misgivings about the mandatory nature of the policy, nonetheless did everything they could to encourage their members to get vaccinated.
Clearly, things have now moved on, in terms of both our overall levels of infections, and in our understanding of this latest variant. It has also become clear that to follow through with this policy could see tens of thousands of staff forced to leave their roles, at a time when our health service is already understaffed and overstretched—indeed, that has been a particular anxiety on these Benches and right across the House. However, efforts must continue to persuade those staff who are still hesitant.
What lessons have the Secretary of State and his Department learned from the Welsh Government, where 95% of staff were double jabbed by November without any mandate? What can we learn from the Welsh Government’s approach to persuasion, and how can we emulate their success? In light of today’s decision, it is all the more important that health and care workers are empowered to do the right thing and isolate when they need to, without the fear of being unable to feed their families. One in five care homes do not pay staff their full wages to isolate. If we are to learn to live well with covid, that must change. Labour’s plan for living well with covid includes making all workers eligible for proper levels of sick pay. Why have the Government still not sorted this? I appreciate that those are also Treasury issues, but that approach is penny-wise and pound-foolish when it comes to protecting public health.
The Labour party supported this measure in December, put the national interest before party politics, and made sure it had the votes needed to pass through the House. We understand the difficulties faced by the Government in coming to today’s decision, and we will continue to be as constructive and helpful as we can be in a national crisis, just as Labour has been throughout the past two years. I welcome very much what the Secretary of State said this afternoon about welcoming Labour support for this policy, and indeed about our wider support for the vaccination roll-out, but let me end on a point of criticism, which is not in any way levelled at the Secretary of State. Given the way that the Labour party has handled its approach to the pandemic response, and the constructive way that we sought to work with the Government, it is not unreasonable to expect the Prime Minister, and others in his party, to stop pretending that that has not been the case. Perhaps he might stop seeking to turn the pandemic—the greatest threat we  have faced to our nation for more than 70 years—into a party political mud fight. Surely we can do better than that, and I would like to think that the Secretary of State and I have been leading by example.

Sajid Javid: Once again, I thank the hon. Gentleman for his approach to this policy area and to vaccinations in general. He is absolutely right in the comments he has made on that and the importance of working across the House and working together on such an important issue in the national interest, as he has done. I very much welcome that approach. Not all countries take such an approach to such an important issue, and they have sadly paid a price for that. I believe that one of the reasons we have such high vaccine uptake in this country is the cross-party approach that has been taken, and I thank him once again for that.
The hon. Gentleman is also right to point to the safety and effectiveness of the vaccines, as independently set out by our world-class regulator, the Medicines and Healthcare products Regulatory Agency, and other reputable regulators across the world. No one should doubt the safety and effectiveness of the vaccines. It is because of the success of this country’s vaccination programme that we are able to open up again in the way that we have and to start returning to normal life.
Very importantly for the people we are talking about today—the fantastic people working in the NHS and across social care—one of the key reasons we have been able to keep down the pressure on the NHS in particular is that so many people have come forward and got vaccinated. That is why it remains troubling that some people, in particular in the NHS, still refuse to get vaccinated, even when they know it is safe and effective, and do not do the responsible thing and act in a professional way.
We will keep going to work with those people in a positive way to try to persuade them about the benefits of vaccination and to provide them with the information they need. We will continue with the work of one-to-one meetings with clinicians if necessary and encouraging them to make that positive choice, but it will be about encouragement and helping them to come to the right decision. We will learn and look at what other parts of the UK have done in making sure that we have the very best practice and have learned from each other.
Finally, on the point that the hon. Gentleman raised about sick pay, I understand what he is saying. I just point to the fact that we have kept rules in place to allow sick pay to be claimed from day one, and a hardship fund is in place to give extra support where needed.

Jeremy Hunt: My right hon. Friend knows that my instinct is to support him in the very difficult decisions he has to take in a pandemic, and I think he is doing an excellent job, but I have some concerns about today’s announcement. I think they may not be shared widely in the House, so I hope colleagues will indulge me if I explain why. Frontline workers have done an extraordinary job in this pandemic, but I have yet to meet a single one who believes that anyone in contact with patients has a right to put them at increased risk by not having a vaccine, unless there is a medical exemption. My concern is that having marched the NHS to the top of the hill and having won a very important patient safety argument, we are now doing a  U-turn. What will happen the next time the Secretary of State wants to introduce an important vaccine, for example for flu, and make it mandatory? Is not the real reason that we have made this decision that we have a staffing crisis that the Government have still not brought forward their plans to address? When will those plans be brought forward?

Sajid Javid: My right hon. Friend speaks with great experience, and I have the utmost respect for him, especially given the many years he spent successfully running this Department. I understand what he says, and I hope he will understand, having listened carefully to the statement, that when the facts change, it is right for the Government to review the policy and determine whether it is still proportionate. Many things have changed in the past couple of months with respect to covid, but the one big thing that has changed is that since this policy was originally implemented, we have moved from 99% of covid infections being delta to 99% being omicron. That is why we have had to change approach.

Martyn Day: I am grateful to the Secretary of State for his statement and for advance sight of it. I welcome the intention to U-turn on vaccination as a condition of employment. I have never supported mandatory vaccination for workers—a policy that, I am pleased to say, Scotland has avoided going down. Adding a further 70,000 or more vacancies to the existing 100,000 in NHS England would be a serious act of self-sabotage.
Vaccines remain one of the best defences against covid-19, as they reduce the likelihood of infection and therefore break the chain of transmission, and are something we should all continue to encourage. The Scottish Government have pursued an “educate and encourage” strategy in their vaccine roll-out, which has resulted in a higher vaccine take-up to date through entirely voluntary means. The five most vaccinated areas in the UK are all in Scotland.
Why are the UK Government taking so long to drop their damaging policy and adopt the Scottish practice? When will the consultation conclude and a decision finally be made? The UK Government’s vaccination mandate may have alienated many NHS staff, so what will be done to repair relations and encourage continued voluntary vaccine take-up?

Sajid Javid: The hon. Gentleman is right to draw the House’s attention to the importance of vaccination, as other Members have done. As was reflected in his remarks, it is the UK’s first line of defence against covid. Thankfully, the UK has put in place many other defences, such as the antivirals that are used across the UK and our testing and surveillance regime, but vaccines are the first line of defence. He is right to talk about encouraging as many people as we possibly can to take up the vaccine if they have so far not done so, whether they work in health and social care or otherwise. He is right that the best general approach is to educate and inform, and that is what we will continue to do.

Esther McVey: What a disappointment this statement is. Having read the newspapers, I was hoping to be able to come here and congratulate the Secretary of State on the Government’s recent conversion  to common sense in halting the mandatory vaccination of NHS workers. Instead, he is making a half-and-half decision today, knowing that the sword of Damocles hangs over those 100,000 NHS workers, because they have to have their first vaccination on Thursday. He will then be sending them on a pathway to unemployment, along with the thousands of care workers who have already lost their jobs. What I want to know is what he is now going to do to help those thousands of people get a job, and what compensation he will pay them.

Sajid Javid: I am happy to clarify the point raised by my right hon. Friend. The Government have made a decision on this matter, which I hope I was very clear about in my statement, but for statutory reasons there needs to be a consultation. There will be a two-week consultation and then a statutory instrument will be presented to the House and will be subject to the will of the House.
The Government have made their decision on this, and the Department will write today to all NHS trusts and contact care home providers and wider social care settings, such as domiciliary care, to make it clear that the deadline my right hon. Friend referred to is no longer applicable. I am very happy to make that clear. She has raised an important point. While the decision is subject to this House, there will be no further enforcement of the regulations, for the reasons I have set out today.

Rachael Maskell: The Health Secretary has not only bullied and threatened NHS staff at a time when they are so fragile, but ignored the royal colleges and all the trade unions when they said that the initial statutory instruments should not have been made. In fact, he has not made it clear today that both will be withdrawn, so I ask him to make that clear. I also ask him to say whether or not all those staff who have lost their employment to date will be reinstated with continuity of employment, including their pensions and other conditions?

Sajid Javid: I am happy to answer those questions. First, the Government’s decision is to revoke both statutory instruments; I am happy to confirm that. On those who, following the statutory instrument on care home settings, chose not to get vaccinated and preferred to leave their job than do the professional thing and get vaccinated, that was their choice, and that does not change. That policy was right at the time—I have set out the reasons why—because the dominant variant was delta. Should those people choose to apply for a job in a care home once the restrictions have been lifted, that is a decision for them. However, I continue to encourage them to make the right positive decision and get vaccinated.

Charles Walker: I promised my wife that I would stop being angry, but I just cannot. Long before vaccines existed, these people who we cast as pariahs were day in, day out, coming into hospitals and care homes and holding the hands of the dying because their children and grandchildren could not. They were doing that while most people in this House were sitting on their backsides safely at home. Now, by all means, let us encourage people to get vaccines, but the language used, suggesting that these people who,  for whatever reason—they may have needle phobia, like  me—have chosen not to get vaccinated are somehow deserving of our bile is a disgrace. It does not reflect badly on them; it reflects badly on us.

Sajid Javid: What I hear from my hon. Friend, and I very much agree, is that vaccines are safe and effective. They remain our most important weapon in fighting the pandemic and, as more people come forward and choose to get vaccinated, that is not only good for them but right for the rest of society, their loved ones and everyone else around them. That is especially so if the people around them—they might be in a care setting or a hospital—are more vulnerable than most of the population. The best way forward is therefore to encourage everyone now to continue to think of the vaccine in that positive, sensible way and to come forward.

Daisy Cooper: I welcome this change of tack because I, like many others, opposed the compulsory vaccination policy. However, I fear that, in the care sector, the damage has been done—there are reports that about 40,000 people have already left—and it is damaging patient safety. With the change of tack, will the Secretary of State tell us his plans to get more carers quickly into the sector? With regard to the shortage occupation list, how many carers does he hope to recruit, and by when?

Sajid Javid: I thank the hon. Lady for that good question. She referenced 40,000 people having left care homes as a result of vaccine as a condition of deployment, and I can give her more information on that. While there is no exact data because care homes are independent and the people who work in them are not employed directly by the state, the Department’s best estimate, which is from the industry, is that the change in workforce during the final half of last year was a fall of 19,300. We do not believe that the 40,000 number is representative—the best proxy number is 19,300. Having said that, no one would want to see anyone leaving the care home sector when, as she rightly identified, we need more people coming forward. That is why we put in place a £162.5 million retention fund before omicron, and we have added to that fund by more than £300 million during omicron. We are also supporting the sector in having the largest recruitment campaign that it has ever run.

John Redwood: I welcome the change of policy. In order to reassure both patients and staff about safety, what progress can the Secretary of State report to the House on better air extraction, air cleaning and ultraviolet filtration? I think that we need to control the virus without telling people exactly what they have to do in their own health treatments.

Sajid Javid: As always, my right hon. Friend has asked a very good question. He will know that infection protection control measures have been in place during the pandemic; they change along with the pandemic over time, depending on the risk profile, and that applies to care settings. The Government have supported care homes with hundreds of millions of pounds to make adaptations and changes and to implement these measures, and I know that many care settings have taken advantage of those funds to provide, for instance, air filtration and ventilation. That is the kind of support that the Government will continue to give.

Hilary Benn: This has always been a difficult issue, because it involves balancing two different sets of rights, and I think that the Secretary of State has made a sensible choice. He talked about changing circumstances, but the one thing that has not changed is the fact that a considerable number of NHS staff remain unvaccinated. In reaching this decision, what representations did he receive from NHS leaders about the impact that those staff having to leave—which they will not now have to do—would have on the ability of the NHS to cope, and was that a factor in the reaching of the decision? I think most of us sitting here today know that it probably was.

Sajid Javid: I hoped that my statement had been clear enough to answer a question such as that asked by the right hon. Gentleman, but I am happy to emphasise what I said earlier. As I said, when coming to any decision, but certainly this decision, we must bear in mind that there are benefits and there are costs. The costs to which I referred related to the fact that obviously some people would no longer be employed in the NHS or in care settings, and that balance remains important. Because of the change in the variant and real change in the benefit part of the equation, the scales tilted, and that is why I no longer think that the policy as set out is proportionate.

Miriam Cates: I welcome my right hon. Friend’s statement, and thank him for listening to those of us on both sides of the House who have raised concerns about this policy. Of course it is right to change policy in the light of new evidence—particularly, in this case, the evidence that omicron is less severe and that vaccines are no longer as effective in reducing transmission. However, as reducing transmission was the only reason for pushing ahead with the vaccination of children, will the Secretary of State now commit himself to a review of that policy, given that children are at almost no risk from covid but there are small but potentially significant risks, both known and unknown—particularly to boys—from covid vaccinations?

Sajid Javid: I thank my hon. Friend for her introductory remarks. As for her question about children and vaccines, she will know that when it comes to vaccination in general, we take advice from the expert committee of the Joint Committee on Vaccination and Immunisation, which, as she would rightly expect, keeps vaccination decisions under review at all times.

Jeremy Corbyn: I hope that the Secretary of State can recognise the very important message given by the unions and the royal colleges only seven weeks ago about the short-sightedness of a compulsion policy, which would drive people—vital workers—out of the care sector and the NHS. I hope that we will never go down the road of compulsory vaccination. I support vaccination, but persuasion is much more powerful than compulsion. Persuasion, when people understand it, is a far more powerful message to get across.
Will the Secretary of State tell us what is the cost of each vaccine to each resident of this country, what is the cost of its manufacture, and whether he has any plans for the patent to be moved into public ownership so that the massive profiteering from these vaccinations can end and the public can get the benefit of it?

Sajid Javid: Where I agree with the right hon. Gentleman is on the importance of persuasion in vaccination. Where I am afraid I disagree with him is on the idea that public ownership of patents connected with vaccinations or drug development in general would help. In fact, I think it would be a backward step and we would not see the innovation that has saved lives.

Julian Lewis: Many patients in hospital will presumably be protected by having undertaken their own vaccination process, but some will be clinically extremely vulnerable because of compromised immune systems. Is the Secretary of State saying that these people are at no greater risk of being made seriously ill or dying as a result of coming into contact with unvaccinated frontline staff? If they are at greater risk, is there something else that can be done to lessen that risk, such as a testing regime, before that contact takes place?

Sajid Javid: That is another good question from my right hon. Friend. I will say two things. First, this is not about zero risk; it is about less risk. What I am saying is that, based on the advice that I have received and for the reasons that I set out in my statement, whether or not someone is immunosuppressed, omicron, in general, represents less risk. It is also right to ask whether other measures could be taken to provide additional support. Yes, they can, which is why I have asked the NHS to review its own policies on the deployment of staff in certain settings, and that would include interaction with the most vulnerable patients.

Clive Lewis: I thank the Secretary of State for today’s U-turn. I know that many of my constituents, both NHS staff and patients, will be deeply grateful for it. We all wanted to see as many NHS staff as possible take up the vaccine, but no one wanted to see people being forced to take the vaccine, especially after all that they have done for us. Can the Secretary of State promise the House that, if there are future outbreaks, he will listen to the overwhelming body of public health evidence, which says that carrot, not stick, persuasion, not enforcement, has better results when it comes to vaccine take-up?

Sajid Javid: This Government will always listen to the evidence and be guided by it, as they have been today.

Huw Merriman: Unlike a number of my colleagues here, I did actually vote in favour of these measures back in December. I did so because I felt that it was important that those going into hospital had the reassurance that those caring for them were fully protected. I understand the Secretary of State’s point that the matter has now changed, but I regret that that is so, because I still feel that my vote was the correct one. May I ask my right hon. Friend this specific question just to assist me to get to the right place with him? He mentions that he asked for fresh advice from the health regulators, and no doubt they advised that this was no longer proportionate in these changed circumstances. Did that precipitate a change in the legal position—that being one of the limbs for judicial review—which means that there is a legal requirement for our having to change course as well?

Sajid Javid: I understand my hon. Friend’s question. When the evidence changes—or, in this case, the change in the variant from delta to omicron—Ministers receive different advice. That advice always comes with up-to-date legal analysis as well, and that legal analysis is certainly taken into account when making a decision.

Paula Barker: Like the hon. Member for Broxbourne (Sir Charles Walker), I too am angry. I am angry because, in December last year, I twice asked the Secretary of State to pause and let us do this via consensus, rather than by making it mandatory. The language we use in this place is extremely important, and the Secretary of State has spoken this evening about care workers and their “choice” to be sacked. What I say is that they did not choose to be sacked. This Government chose not to give them appropriate personal protective equipment at the height of the pandemic. This Government chose to discharge elderly patients into care homes at the height of the pandemic. That is the real choice that this Government have made. Will the Secretary of State re-evaluate? Will he go back and apologise to those care workers, some of the lowest paid in our labour market, and ensure that they have continuity of service and of pension contributions?

Sajid Javid: Where the hon. Lady and I will absolutely agree is on the service that we have seen as a country from care home workers and domiciliary care workers over the pandemic. It has been the test of a lifetime for anyone working in that sector and each and every one of those people has risen to that challenge and provided the best care that they could in the most difficult circumstances. As the hon. Lady will know, there is an inquiry into the pandemic, where I am sure that many of the issues will be looked at, such as whether better support could have been provided under the circumstances. Looking ahead, however, it is important that we continue to do everything we can to continue to support that vital sector.

Ben Bradley: I welcome the Secretary of State’s decision, which is important for the continuity and delivery of our local services. We were faced with losing more than 3,000 health and care staff in Nottinghamshire alone in a few weeks’ time, so this will massively take the pressure off come March and April. I urge him to go further if possible: I do not think it is fair to present the decision that care home workers made in November as leaving by choice. The truth is that we need those staff and more if we are to implement the reforms that the Government are asking the care sector to deliver on at a local level in the coming months, rather than having to focus all our energy on everyday firefighting. Will he change the view that he has stated so far, reach out to those staff and try to help them back into the sector?

Sajid Javid: Yes, I agree with my hon. Friend. As I said, we need more people in care and in the NHS. We have a waiting list in both sectors. There are many people out there who will have experience and will want to do that. He asked whether we can work with the sector to reach out and to support and help people to re-enter it where they wish to do so. Of course we can. At the same time, we can continue to give any information that may be helpful and necessary to help to persuade those who remain unvaccinated to make that positive choice and get vaccinated.

Andrew Slaughter: My hospital trust, Imperial College, has done its best to care for staff in the past two years. Like other trusts, it has found it difficult to implement what was, until a few moments ago, Government policy, but it did so because it was good clinical practice to protect its patients and it gave confidence to the general public, who might say, “Why should I get vaccinated if my doctor won’t?” What advice does the Secretary of State have for the hospitals and care homes, and their staff and ex-staff, who may now feel betrayed?

Sajid Javid: I will say two things to anyone involved in NHS trusts, especially those who were leading the campaign to encourage their colleagues to get vaccinated. First, I say a huge thanks for what they have done and what they have achieved so far. I mentioned earlier that, since we consulted on the original regulations, 127,000 more people across the NHS have been vaccinated, which represents in total some 19 out of every 20 employees in the NHS. That is a phenomenal achievement. My thanks go to all those working in the NHS who have helped to make that happen and are still helping to make that happen.
Secondly, I say to those people that their work, with our support—the support of the Government and my Department—continues. Despite the changes today, for the reasons that I have set out, it is still hugely important to get vaccinated. We must keep reaching out positively to those who have not yet, for whatever reason, chosen to do so by helping them to make the right decision.

Chris Green: I welcome my right hon. Friend’s statement. He made several references to conditions of employment and he finished by asking regulators, “to urgently review current guidance to registrants on vaccinations”.
What will he do to ensure that that does not become a compulsion for vaccinations by other means?

Sajid Javid: The regulators I referred to are independent, so all I can do is ask them to review their regulations. My hon. Friend might be aware that some regulators, such as the General Medical Council, already have requirements for vaccinations in certain settings, which is a decision for them. As he will know, however, the independent regulators usually set out guidance and allow some flexibility in how it is interpreted in certain settings.

Bob Seely: I thank the Secretary of State for this decision. I opposed the policy in December for reasons that have been eloquently laid out by Members such as my hon. Friend the Member for Broxbourne (Sir Charles Walker), although I was respectful of the Government’s position. Overall, persuasion is better than coercion, and honesty is better than the manipulative games that we now hear the nudge unit was playing and that were entirely counterproductive. Will the Secretary of State reassure me that, now we have some breathing space, we can do a bit of forward thinking and prepare a plan for this winter that protects the vulnerable and enables the NHS to continue to treat people but does so without resorting to lockdowns? The idea that lockdown is a cost-free, risk-free option is absolutely untrue, as we have now seen from the 100,000 children who have come off school rolls and disappeared. Lockdown carries an  extraordinarily heavy price, and frankly a lot of the modelling and forecasting behind it have been extremely flawed.

Sajid Javid: If we look at the experience from the omicron wave, we can see that we had the fewest restrictions on people’s freedom of any large country in Europe, yet we have been the first country to come out of the omicron wave and hit the peak. I believe the main reason for that is that we rightly focused on pharmaceutical defences: vaccines in particular, of course, as well as antivirals and testing. There is a lot to be learned from that.

Steven Baker: Though we may have arrived here by different routes, I am grateful that today my right hon. Friend and I agree on this policy area. We also agree that vaccination is the better choice for everybody for whom it is safe if they do not have a pre-existing condition. Can I just pick up the issue of language? He has used a range of tones when talking about people. He has used some quite soft language about persuasion, and we have heard a range of perspectives on that, but he has also used some very strident language, which my hon. Friend the Member for Broxbourne (Sir Charles Walker) criticised—rightly, I think. Can I ask my right hon. Friend to set out for the House what his attitude is to the issue of bodily autonomy and using the law to compromise it? If he does respect people’s bodily autonomy, can I ask him please to select language that is respectful of that choice?

Sajid Javid: I am pleased that my hon. Friend and I agree on what has been set out today, but he is right to raise what he has said in the way that he has. Language is vitally important, especially on issues of this great significance, when we are asking people to be injected with something, to put a needle to themselves and to get vaccinated, for all the right reasons. Of course some people will be more resistant than others to doing that, for whatever reason, and will have some kind of hesitancy. It is our duty to work with them. I am sure my hon. Friend will agree that when we reach for a statute in relation to vaccination, there needs to be a very, very high bar. He has heard me say at this Dispatch Box more than once that I would never support universal vaccination or any kind of statute. This policy I have talked about today required a very high bar to be reached. At the time we introduced the policy, I believed that the bar was reached, for the reasons I have set out about protecting vulnerable people. Now I believe it would be disproportionate, and that is why I have set this change out today. What has not changed is the importance of vaccination, and for those people who can get vaccinated and who are not medically exempt from it for some reason, we should continue to work together across this House to encourage them to do so and work with them in the most positive way possible, because they would be better off and we would all be better off.

Rosie Winterton: I thank the Secretary of State for his statement.

ADVANCED RESEARCH AND INVENTION AGENCY (WAYS AND MEANS)

Resolved,
That, for the purposes of any Act resulting from the Advanced Research and Invention Agency Bill, it is expedient to authorise any charges to tax resulting from the Advanced Research and  Invention Agency being a public authority for the purposes of Chapter 10 of Part 2 of the Income Tax (Earnings and Pensions) Act 2003.—(Gareth Johnson.)

Advanced Research and Innovation Agency Bill (Programme) (No. 2)

Motion made, and Question put forthwith (Standing Order No. 83A(7)),
That the following provisions shall apply to the Advanced Research and Invention Agency Bill for the purpose of supplementing the Order of 23 March 2021 (Advanced Research and Invention Agency Bill (Programme) in the last Session of Parliament):
Consideration of Lords Amendments
1. Proceedings on consideration of Lords Amendments shall (so far as not previously concluded) be brought to a conclusion one hour after their commencement.
Subsequent stages
2. Any further Message from the Lords may be considered forthwith without any Question being put.
3. The proceedings on any further Message from the Lords shall (so far as not previously concluded) be brought to a conclusion one hour after their commencement.—(Gareth Johnson.)
Question agreed to.

Advanced Research and Invention  Agency Bill

Consideration of Lords amendments

Rosie Winterton: I must draw the House’s attention to the fact that financial privilege is engaged by Lords amendments 1, 12 and 14. If the House agrees to any of these Lords amendments, I shall ensure that the appropriate entry is made in the Journal.

Clause 2 - ARIA’s functions

George Freeman: I beg to move, That this House disagrees with Lords amendment 1.

Rosie Winterton: With this it will be convenient to consider Lords amendments 2 to 15.

George Freeman: I am delighted that the Bill to create this exciting new agency has returned to this House and that I am able to speak to it for the first time in my role as Minister for Science, Research and Innovation. I pay tribute to my ministerial colleague Lord Callanan for his work on the Bill in the other place. Not for the first time in matters scientific, their lordships have kept our Minister very busy on the Front Bench. I also pay tribute to my hon. Friend the Member for Derby North (Amanda Solloway), who so capably led the Bill when it was first before the House.
There are 15 amendments for our consideration tonight. Fourteen of those were tabled or supported by the Government. I will summarise them quickly. Amendments 2 to 8 relate to changes the Government made in response to the Delegated Powers and Regulatory Reform Committee’s report on the Bill. In doing so, we demonstrated the seriousness with which we take the DPRRC’s recommendations and the Government’s commitment to acting upon them. The effect of those amendments is to omit clause 10, which contained a broader power to make consequential provision, and to replace it with a narrower, more specific power in clause 8. The new power can be used only in consequence of regulations dissolving ARIA. Other amendments are needed to tidy up the rest of the Bill and reflect that change. I hope that the changes are, in general, welcome.
Amendments 9 and 10 remove a power for ARIA to pay pensions and gratuities determined by the Secretary of State to non-executive members. We have tested that thoroughly and are content that in ARIA’s specific case, that power is not needed. Again, the two amendments reflect the usual process of improving the Bill in response to scrutiny and the expertise that colleagues here—and in particular in the other place—have brought to bear.
Amendments 11 and 13 remove the amendments previously included in the Bill that had the effect of reserving ARIA. I have had productive discussions on this with my ministerial colleagues in Wales, Scotland and Northern Ireland, to reiterate the importance of ARIA and our broader science policy to help strengthen the Union. I am delighted that they share my vision and ambition for ARIA and that we have reached an agreement  on the independence of ARIA—a memorandum of understanding that is a shared commitment to safeguard the organisation’s most important characteristics, and which means the reservations are not needed. I am delighted to be able to report that legislative consent motions have been passed in all three devolved legislatures on the basis of that agreement, and I similarly commend it to the House.
Government amendments 12, 14 and 15 apply some relevant obligations to ARIA that would normally apply automatically to public authorities listed in the Freedom of Information Act 2000. The amendments provide for ARIA to be treated as a public authority for the purposes of the Data Protection Act 2018, the Income Tax (Earnings and Pensions) Act 2003, the Enterprise Act 2016 and the Small Business, Enterprise and Employment Act 2015. They also amend various regulations and the UK GDPR to reflect that. That ensures that ARIA is treated in the same way as a public organisation normally would be treated in those important areas.

Daniel Zeichner: The Minister will know from previous discussions that the question of freedom of information has come up before. Would it not be much simpler just to make ARIA subject to the Freedom of Information Act? In the current climate, would that not reassure the public?

George Freeman: It may reassure the public, but we also have to take into consideration the fact that to succeed, world-class scientists have been recruited to ARIA to lead in cutting-edge science. That very small staff need to be sure that they will not be tied up answering 101—often spurious—freedom of information requests from the media, who are keen on running stories. We want to make sure the agency is accountable properly but not bogged down in what can be hugely onerous freedom of information requests.

John Redwood: In that connection, could the Minister give the House some brief guidance on what he, as the accountable Minister, would expect by way of discussion and influence over corporate plans and budgets and onward reporting to the House?

George Freeman: I am grateful to my right hon. Friend for that question, and he will not be surprised to know that it is one I have also been asking since coming to this role. The point of ARIA is to be a new agency for doing new science in new ways, and it has been structured specifically to avoid meddling Ministers, even those with a good idea, and meddling officials, even those with good intent, and to create an agency that is free.
My right hon. Friend asks an important question. As we appoint the chief executive officer and the chair, the framework agreement will set out, a bit like a subscription agreement, the agency’s operating parameters, which will be published in due course. Each year ARIA will have to report on its stated plans. Crucially, as is so often not the case in scientific endeavour, ARIA will report where happy failure has occurred so that we do not continue to pour more money into scientific programmes that have not succeeded, which I know will reassure him. We want ARIA to be free to be honest about that, and not embarrassed. ARIA will be annually accountable through the framework agreement.
Finally, Lords amendment 1 deals with the conditions that ARIA may attach to its financial support. This arises from a series of important discussions in the other place relating to ARIA’s duty to commercialise intellectual property that may be generated, which I am keen to address properly. However, the amendment, as drafted, does not actually prevent ARIA from doing anything; it adds examples of conditions that ARIA may attach to financial support, but ARIA already has the general power to do just that. Legally, the amendment simply represents a drafting change. As such, we cannot accept it, but we understand and acknowledge the importance of the point that the noble Lord Browne had in mind.
It is our firm belief that, although it is not appropriate at this stage to specify ARIA’s contracting and granting arrangements in legislation, we recognise the substance of the concerns underlying the amendment: namely, that ARIA should have a duty to the taxpayer to ensure it is not haemorrhaging intellectual property of value to the UK. I will outline our position on that.
The amendment focuses principally on overseas acquisition of IP relating to the principles on which the Government intervene in foreign takeovers of UK businesses, particularly where those businesses have benefited from public investment in research and development activities. The National Security and Investment Act 2021, which fully commenced earlier this month, provides just such a framework, and it marks the biggest upgrade of investment screening in the UK for 20 years.
The NSI Act covers relevant sectors, such as quantum technologies and synthetic biology, that have benefited from significant public investment, and it permits the Government to scrutinise acquisitions on national security grounds. This new investment screening regime supports the UK’s world-leading reputation as an attractive place to invest, and it has been debated extensively in both Houses very recently. We do not believe that revisiting those debates today would be productive.
Although the NSI Act provides a statutory framework, a much broader strand of work is under way. As Science Minister, I take very seriously the security of our academic and research community. A number of measures have been taken in the past few months and years to strengthen our protections. We are working closely with the sector to help it identify and address risks from overseas collaborations, while supporting academic freedom of thought and institutional independence.
Members do not need me to tell them that intellectual property is incredibly valuable and we increasingly face both sovereign and industrial espionage. It is important that we are able to support our universities to be aware of those risks and to avoid them. The Bill already provides the Secretary of State with a broad power of direction over ARIA on issues of national security, which provides a strong mechanism to intervene in its activities in the unlikely event it is necessary to do so.

Stephen Flynn: I welcome the Minister to the Dispatch Box for the first time on this Bill. He is saying that ARIA can already do this, so the Government do not need to legislate in this regard, but that the Government would, none the less, be keen to see ARIA do it. There seems to be a discrepancy in that thought process.

George Freeman: There is no discrepancy. I will explain why but, essentially, the Bill already sets out ARIA’s statutory responsibility to generate economic return for the UK, and the hon. Gentleman will know, as I do from my career negotiating intellectual property agreements, that at this stage it would be wholly inappropriate to mandate in statute the form that these intellectual property agreements will take. To be blunt, we do not yet know what programmes the chair and chief executive will put in place. It is only when we know the sort of science that ARIA is doing that we will possibly be in a position, through the framework agreement, to set out the appropriate ways to ensure that value is maximised.
Security issues will also be a core consideration in ARIA’s governance arrangements in the framework agreement to ensure its effective functioning as an organisation. I confirm to colleagues that the framework document, which deals with those issues, will include obligations on ARIA to work closely with our national security apparatus. That is prudent to ensure that ARIA’s research is protected from hostile states and actors and to stay connected to the Government’s wider agenda on strategic technological advantage.
The Government’s chief scientist, who will be on the ARIA board, will bring intelligence and expertise across security issues within Government, supported by the new Office for Science and Technology Strategy and the National Science and Technology Council. ARIA will of course have internal expertise to advise its board and programme managers, while also working with recipients of its funding in universities and businesses on research-specific security issues. That will be vital for ARIA to stay at the forefront of responding to the challenging nature of the UK’s interests in this area.
There is also the question of how ARIA responds to the UK’s strategic interests in science and technology more generally where they may not quite fall under the national security umbrella. The integrated review, the creation of the new OSTS and the National Science and Technology Council, on which I sit, outline our ambition to ensure that there is a serious, strategic machinery of government commitment to the strategic industrial advantage of UK science and technology. That is a fundamental priority for me and the Government more broadly.
ARIA is nestled within that structure and is required to be aware of all those priorities, but we must keep its role in perspective. It will be only a small part of a landscape that we are explicitly seeking to make independent of Government and free to explore new funding approaches. The whole point of ARIA is to be a new agency and to do new science in new ways.

Graham Stringer: The Minister is being admirably blunt about keeping interfering Ministers and officials from controlling or influencing ARIA, but there is also influence from the scientific establishment, which has its own programmes and would like the sums of money in ARIA to go to them. Given the structure of the board, is he satisfied that ARIA will maintain its independence not just from the civil service and Ministers, but from the scientific establishment?

George Freeman: The hon. Member raises a very important point. Yes, I am satisfied, and for this reason: the way in which the agency has been established through  the Bill and our plans to appoint the CEO and the chair on the basis that they will set out a very bold vision for ARIA to be the agency for new science in new ways. All the support that we are providing is specifically designed to allow them to operate in an environment where they can draw on the very best of UK science infrastructure and expertise, but not find themselves bound by either the short-term grant application process that dominates or the often substantial interests seeking investment in their own field. We will be able to attract the people we intend to attract because of that freedom. For that reason, I am confident—as that will be set out in the framework agreement and held to account by the board of ARIA and the scientific advisory board—that we will be able to ensure that that is the case.
Although ARIA will operate independently, it will be guided by key obligations regarding economic and UK benefit. ARIA must, in all its activity, have regard to the economic growth or economic benefit in the UK, alongside other considerations. That statutory obligation is set out clearly in clause 2(6), and it is right that that is in the Bill. Public investment in R&D must drive long-term socioeconomic benefit and deliver value to UK taxpayers. ARIA will be scrutinised by Government and Parliament on how effectively it fulfils its functions, including that one.
I can confirm that mechanisms for that scrutiny will be in the framework agreement. This includes requiring an internal evaluation framework for ARIA programmes—that deals with the point made by my right hon. Friend the Member for Wokingham (John Redwood)—and looking at, for example, their expected benefits and alignment with the organisation’s strategic objectives. It also includes setting the terms on which ARIA produces annual accounts and reporting, through which ARIA’s CEO will be accountable to Parliament for how the resources allocated to it are used. The National Audit Office will be able to examine the value for money of ARIA’s activities, and we in the Government must be assured of that value, on which ARIA’s future funding will depend. Everyone involved is clear about that.
There are many ways in which the obligations that I have set out might be felt in respect of how ARIA operates. For example, ARIA may employ contracting arrangements that require funding recipients either to seek to exploit the outputs in the UK or forfeit the funding, as other funders routinely do. In some cases, ARIA may retain IP rights—it has that freedom—and will be able to draw on specialist support from the new Government office for technology transfer. That will help ARIA to extract the greatest possible value from its knowledge assets.
In general, we expect ARIA programmes to produce long-term, deep scientific benefits that are felt over the long term, and to support the highest-risk research where there is a clear role for public funding. It would be premature to seek to legislate in statute at this point, before the appointment of the CEO and the chair or the establishment of the funding programme plan. In addition to that being premature, given that its very freedoms will be a major attraction for people to come from around the world to work at the agency, we are concerned that to be seen to shackle those freedoms in statute may well disincentivise the most innovative scientists and researchers from coming to join programmes.
Finally, this issue encompasses the entirety of our R&D system and approach to investment in UK science and technology and we are extremely focused on it, but changes to ARIA alone cannot alter the wider environment. We must ensure that funding from ARIA is not subject to more stringent conditions than other public R&D funders, because that would undermine the independence and agility that are the defining characteristics of this exciting initiative for UK science.

Chi Onwurah: I welcome the Minister to his place in leading on this important Bill and echo his thanks to the former Minister, the hon. Member for Derby North (Amanda Solloway). I also thank colleagues in the other place who have worked so hard to improve the Bill. In particular, I thank my noble Friend Lord Browne for his successful and much-needed amendment to protect Britain’s intellectual property.
The UK has a proud tradition in science and innovation. We are renowned around the world for the scientific breakthroughs and discoveries that have pushed humanity forwards. From the discovery of penicillin to the invention of Stephenson’s Rocket—in Newcastle—UK science has again and again pushed the boundaries of humanity’s knowledge.
UK science is not only inspiring but key to our health and that of our economy, as the pandemic has shown. Our university research base alone contributes £95 billion to the economy, supporting nearly 1 million jobs in science institutes, charities and businesses of all sizes. We have many innovative start-ups throughout the country that require only the right support to contribute to the innovation nation that our history, economy, security and future prosperity all demand. That is why it is so important that we get the Advanced Research and Invention Agency right.
ARIA, originally the brainchild of very-much-former adviser Dominic Cummings, is positioned as a high-risk, high-reward research agency, based on the Defence Advanced Research Projects Agency in the US. Labour welcomed ARIA and continues to support it—it has great potential to fill a gap in the UK’s research and development landscape and help deliver fantastic inventions—but we are clear that the benefits of ARIA’s investments must be felt in the UK. We are equally clear that without Lords amendment 1, that may not be the case.
Lords amendment 1 would give ARIA the option to treat its financial support to a business as convertible into an equity interest in the business and thus to benefit from intellectual property created with ARIA’s support. It would also enable ARIA to require consent during the 10 years following financial or resource support, if the business intended to transfer intellectual property abroad or to transfer a controlling interest to a business not resident in the UK.
We have to start by acknowledging that the UK does not provide a sufficiently supportive environment for innovation start-ups to thrive. That is why we have already lost so many of them. Too often, tech start-ups face a choice between relocating outside the UK and being bought out by a larger multinational, and the UK loses out. In 2014, Britain had probably the most important and groundbreaking artificial intelligence company in  the world, DeepMind, but instead of capitalising on this cutting-edge technology and instead of introducing an effective support system for start-ups, the Government allowed it to be sold to Google for £400 million, with no investigation or action. In 2020, early investor Humayun Sheikh estimated that DeepMind would be worth $30 billion now. That is a huge reward on the investment, but not one that has gone to UK taxpayers or UK citizens, and the UK is now in effect losing out on billions in economic benefits.
In the Labour party, we want to support our start-ups. The Government—and, indeed, the Minister in his comments—have tried to claim that Lords amendment 1 is not needed because they believe that the National Security and Investment Act already gives sufficient powers to scrutinise and intervene in takeover bids. However, the Minister must acknowledge that, despite our attempts to include economic security in the NSI Bill, the Government insisted on a much narrower definition of national security. While it is progress that the Government are reflecting national security in takeovers and mergers policy, for which we have been calling for a long time, the NSI Act does not address the issue of intellectual property and its economic value.
The Government have also argued that the amendment will discourage companies from participating in ARIA because it is important for them to own their intellectual property, but what innovative start-ups really need is support so that they do not have to relocate to scale up. PsiQuantum, a world-leading quantum computing company credited with building the world’s first useful quantum company, started in Bristol, but had to relocate to Silicon valley to access greater support. With this amendment, companies can benefit from ARIA’s support and the UK can benefit from the innovation, instead of seeing it move abroad.
The Minister has set out that he shares our concerns, but I am afraid that he does not really seem to have a plan to address them. He hints that the framework agreement setting out ARIA’s functions will do so  under some kind of general requirement to work with Government, but without any detail. In many ways, ARIA is emblematic of the Government’s science strategy—big promises followed by a lack of detail, a lack of transparency and a surfeit of confusion. Conservative peer Lord Lansley made the point:
“If ARIA is to have a strategy for the funding it receives from the Government, it needs to know in advance whether it can retain revenue derived from investment… That is where I want the most specific assurances from my noble friend that the Government will provide that opportunity to ARIA.”—[Official Report, House of Lords, 14 December 2021; Vol. 817, c. 82, 83.]
I agree with him.
We only want what is truly in the interests of our nation. We are not wedded to a particular form of words and we are willing to discuss an alternative that protects IP, but we need assurances that inventions generated by ARIA support, financial or otherwise, will benefit the UK, and I am afraid to say that the Minister just really has not given such assurances.

George Freeman: To assist the hon. Lady before she decides whether to divide the House, I just wanted to make it very clear that there is a statutory obligation on ARIA, set out clearly in clause 2(6), that it must have regard to
“economic growth, or an economic benefit, in the United Kingdom”
as a core part of its statutory duties. We simply want to make sure that the leadership team, through the framework agreement, have the freedom to set out what the right mechanism is, rather than to mandate it now.

Chi Onwurah: I thank the Minister for that intervention, which demonstrates that he is with us in spirit but he just does not want to be with us in actual legislation. There is something of a confusion of thought there. I am very familiar with the clauses that require ARIA to have regard to economic benefit, but if he thinks this is something ARIA should be doing and should look to do—again, as we have said, this amendment is enabling and not prescriptive—surely he should be happy to make that clear. If he thinks it is too constraining for ARIA to do this, he ought to make that clear. He is the Minister and this Bill should reflect what the intent is, and the intent should be to ensure that the benefits from intellectual property generated, created and invented in the UK should be felt in the UK.
Lords amendments 2 to 8 limit ministerial powers to dissolve ARIA, in response to the delegated powers in the Regulatory Reform Committee’s report on the Bill, and we will not oppose those amendments. They prohibit the Minister from making consequential amendments to primary legislation and from dissolving ARIA in the first 10 years. Lords amendments 9 and 10 remove the Minister’s powers to determine a pension or gratuity for non-executive ARIA members. It should be noted that the Minister appoints non-executive members to ARIA’s board, and it is refreshing to see a Conservative Government taking steps to limit cronyism in advance of major losses to the public purse. Lords amendments 11 and 13 mean that ARIA will no longer be treated a reserved matter in relation to Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland, and we also do not oppose this. Labour is clear that devolved voices must be heard and that scientific opportunities must be spread across the UK, so the consent of devolved Administrations is crucial.
Lords amendments 12, 14 and 15 provide for ARIA to be treated as a public body under the Income Tax (Earnings and Pensions) Act 2003, the Small Business, Enterprise and Employment Act 2015, the Enterprise Act 2016 and the Data Protection Act 2018. My colleague in the other place, Baroness Chapman of Darlington, pointed out, as did my hon. Friend the Member for Cambridge (Daniel Zeichner), that this would not be necessary if ARIA was subject to freedom of information requests, something that Labour has repeatedly called for. The Government were so busy trying to ensure that ARIA would not be treated as a public body for the purposes of FOI that they had to tack on these amendments. That these amendments were tabled only at the Committee stage in the Lords points to Government negligence. We have here a Government too busy trying to avoid accountability to do their job properly— why does that sound so familiar?

Graham Stringer: Does my hon. Friend agree that, during the covid epidemic we have been through, some of the mistakes that have been made came about because the Government were not as open as they could have been with the scientific advice, and that FOI and openness are of value to the scientific method itself? To exclude this body from FOI potentially detracts from the science.  We saw another example of this 11 years ago, with the “climategate” emails at the University of East Anglia, when people did not operate openly and it caused scientific problems.

Chi Onwurah: My hon. Friend makes two very important points. First, many of this Government’s mistakes have been due to lack of transparency, not only in the original policy of giving contracts to friends but in the follow-up of explaining those actions. Transparency is always a very good thing. Secondly, the scientific method is about openness. That is how ideas, inventions and progress are made in science. Critically, DARPA, on which ARIA is supposedly based, is subject to the freedom of information process and finds that that helps it in its work.
To conclude, Labour welcomes ARIA. Science and research can be the engine of progress for our society, and we welcome investment in our sciences. That investment, however, must benefit the people who pay for it: the British public. Without Lords amendment 1, we have no assurances that that will happen. If the Government want Britain to be a science superpower, why will they not protect British science and tech IP?

Stephen Flynn: In the greatest traditions of this House, I intend to be brief, which I am sure will be to everyone’s pleasure.
The biggest issue before us is, of course, Lords amendment 1. I listened closely to what the Minister had to say, but I remain to be convinced. He has paid deference to the clause, which says, if I recall correctly, that ARIA “must have regard to”, while the amendment simply seeks to ensure that ARIA “must”. That is a strong difference to which the Minister should give cognisance, particularly given that, in effect, we could be talking about the crown jewels. We are all hopeful that ARIA will be an impressive institution that will reap rewards for all of us right across the four nations of this United Kingdom—while we remain within it, of course. I find it a little contemptuous that the Government do not want to be on that side of the argument.
The topic of equity has been raised. There are some very famous examples. For instance, though this is slightly different, the US Government provided a significant amount of money in a loan to Tesla. That money was subsequently paid back a number of years ago, prior to Tesla becoming one of the world’s wealthiest companies and, indeed, to Elon Musk becoming one of the world’s wealthiest men. There should be a lesson in that for the Government, and it is one that they should heed.
From what I have heard, the Minister seems to be in broad agreement. He thinks that what is in place will allow this to happen in any case. I hope that over the course of the remaining debate, to which I am sure there will be an extensive number of contributions, he may be swayed to agree to Lords amendment 1.

Sarah Olney: I, too, will keep my comments brief. The Liberal Democrats have been supportive of this Bill from the start, since its Second Reading. We very much welcome the opportunity and, indeed, the new vehicle to get funding into science and technology in this country.
I join the hon. Members for Aberdeen South (Stephen Flynn) and for Newcastle upon Tyne Central (Chi Onwurah), however, in saying that the absolute priority  must be to ensure that that investment stays in this country and benefits the people, including the investors, those who may benefit from employment and, indeed, every single one of us who seeks to benefit from the new innovation for which this money may well pay. A couple of weeks ago I visited my former employers at the National Physical Laboratory in Teddington, where I saw for myself the incredible work that is taking place on battery technology and hydrogen technology. There is so much potential for the future, but this country has traditionally been really bad at converting that incredible R&D skill into entrepreneurism and innovation and at building sustainable businesses. That is why I think it is so important that we support the Lords amendment, and it is certainly why we will vote against the Government’s motion.
Question put, That this House disagrees with Lords amendment 1.

The House divided: Ayes 304, Noes 208.
Question accordingly agreed to.
Lords amendment 1 disagreed to.
Lords amendments 2 to 15 agreed to, with Commons financial privileges waived in respect of Lords amendments 12 and 14.
Motion made, and Question put forthwith (Standing Order No. 83H), That a Committee be appointed to draw up a Reason to be assigned to the Lords for disagreeing to their amendment 1;
That George Freeman, Craig Whittaker, Felicity Buchan, Mark Fletcher, Chi Onwurah, Jessica Morden and Stephen Flynn be members of the Committee;
That George Freeman be the Chair of the Committee;
That three be the quorum of the Committee.
That the Committee do withdraw immediately.—(Gareth Johnson.)
Question agreed to.
Committee to withdraw immediately; reason to be reported and communicated to the Lords.

Dormant Assets Bill [Lords] (Programme) (No.2)

Ordered,
That the Order of 6 December 2021 (Dormant Assets) Bill [Lords] (Programme)) be varied as follows—
Paragraphs (4) and (5) of the Order shall be omitted.
Proceedings on Consideration shall (so far as not previously concluded) be brought to a conclusion two hours after the commencement of proceedings on the Motion for this Order
Proceedings on Third Reading shall (so far as not previously concluded) be brought to a conclusion three hours after the commencement of proceedings on the Motion for this Order.—(Gareth Johnson.)

Dormant Assets Bill [Lords]

Consideration of Bill, as amended in the Public Bill Committee

New Clause 1 - Authorised reclaim funds: duty to assess and report

‘(1) The Secretary of State must make an annual assessment of the health and governance of authorised reclaim funds. The assessment must be reported to Parliament.
(2) The first report under subsection (1) must be laid 12 months after—
(a) any restriction imposed under section 18A(1)(a) of the 2008 Act comes into force, or
(b) the provision in section 18A(1)(b) of that Act comes into force,
whichever occurs first.
(3) An assessment under subsection (1) must include an evaluation of the risk of insolvency of the fund.’—(Alex Davies-Jones.)
This new clause would require the Secretary of State to assess the health and governance of reclaim funds regularly in relation to the risk of insolvency, and to report on this annually to Parliament.
Brought up, and read the First time.

Alex Davies-Jones: I beg to move, That the clause be read a Second time.

Rosie Winterton: With this it will be convenient to consider Government amendments 1 and 2.

Alex Davies-Jones: I rise to speak to new clause 1 in my name and that of my hon. Friend the Member for Manchester, Withington (Jeff Smith). As the Bill has moved through this House and the other place, I have been pleased by the progress that has been made, although there is still work to be done to ensure that dormant assets are distributed and governed effectively. Colleagues will be aware that the Bill will expand the current dormant assets scheme, which was first introduced by a Labour Government in 2008. The Government define dormant assets as a financial product, such as a bank account, that has not been used for many years and which the provider has been unable to reunite with its owner, despite efforts aligned with industry best practice.
In 2008, the Dormant Bank and Building Society Accounts Act was passed to provide a system to distribute dormant assets to good causes. Currently, 24 banks and building societies participate in the reclaim fund scheme, but Labour has always intended that the dormant assets scheme would broaden the financial products to which that legislation applies.
Although the Bill makes some progress and Labour supports the need for consultation, we urge that the scheme go much further. With the right safeguards in place to find the owners of assets, unclaimed winnings from gambling, pension assets and physical assets could be considered in the future, too. While I am grateful to the Minister for his frankness throughout the passage of this Bill, I must once again put on record that while Labour is generally supportive of the Bill, we urge that further consideration be given to incorporating pension assets into the scheme. While I recognise that the Minister  has highlighted that occupational pension schemes and personal pension schemes whose owners were automatically enrolled are excluded, or out of scope of the Bill, I hope that in the future those assets will receive further consideration.
The core principles of any scheme must remain clear. Attempts should first be made to reunite assets with their rightful owners before transferring them. Owners should always be able to reclaim their funds, and participation must ultimately be voluntary. Labour is also clear that any funds released to the dormant assets scheme must not be used as a substitute for Government spending. We know that the increasing cost of living is impacting so many people across the country, and this Bill presents an important opportunity to release further funding and to put right some of the wrongs. On that point, I pay particular tribute to colleagues on the all-party parliamentary group for “left behind” neighbourhoods, who have been closely focused on the importance of dormant asset funding for vital community projects in the most left-behind parts of the country.
With that in mind, I place on record Labour’s thoughts on community wealth funds, which the Minister knows I feel passionately about. In the other place, Labour secured an amendment that would have allowed the Secretary of State to include community wealth funds as recipients of funding. That amendment had cross-party support and was generally welcomed by the sector. The aim of including community wealth funds as recipients of funding is clear. The designated money would be designed to go towards social infrastructure to further the wellbeing of communities suffering from high levels of deprivation. I was disappointed and also surprised that the Government chose to remove a measure aimed at empowering communities, which is also at the heart of the Government’s well-rehearsed levelling-up agenda. That said, I welcome the Minister’s collaborative and candid approach throughout the latter stages of this Bill, and Labour welcomes the Government’s commitment to including community wealth funds as part of the first round of consultations, as outlined in the Government’s amendment 2.
We must now make sure that momentum is not lost on that important development, as community wealth funds are central to reviving so many communities up and down the country. With that in mind, central to any spend is the importance of governance and sustainability in ensuring that funds of this nature are maintained and in good health.
The Minister knows, and I believe agrees, that scrutiny of the reclaim fund is vital. That is why we have tabled new clause 1. Recent events have highlighted the need for a transparent approach to decisions made in this place and the other place, and it is therefore vital that the Government are held to account on the health and governance of reclaim funds, especially in relation to the potential for insolvency.

Toby Perkins: I endorse entirely what my hon. Friend is saying. Does she agree, given the lack of confidence in some of the decision-making processes that the Government have undertaken before allocating funds, that it is all the more reason why new clause 1 would have real public confidence?

Alex Davies-Jones: I wholeheartedly agree with my hon. Friend. Part of the reason we tabled new clause 1 is for openness and transparency, so that the public and this House can scrutinise exactly where this funding is being placed. Scrutiny is at the very heart of our jobs here in this place, and an annual report brought forward to Parliament, as new clause 1 stipulates, would be a crucial step forward.
Lastly, on Government amendment 1, I am pleased to see the clarification around collective scheme investments. It is vital that such investments remain eligible for incorporation into the reclaim fund. I hope to see further assets incorporated in the future, as I stipulated earlier.
Ultimately, Labour supports the Bill as our priority remains expanding the dormant assets scheme in line with our commitments first made in 2008. The programme so far has been extremely successful, and predictions suggest that expanding the scheme in such a way would identify about £3.7 billion of unclaimed assets, of which about £1.7 billion would be eligible for transfer to the reclaim fund. From that, £880 million would be repurposed for good causes across the UK. Labour supports that extremely welcome step, and I look forward to continuing to work with the Minister to tackle the challenges around extending the scheme to other assets. I hope that he will take on board our concerns about future governance of the fund, too.

Danny Kruger: I congratulate the Government on bringing forward the Bill. I recognise that, as the hon. Member for Pontypridd (Alex Davies-Jones) said, the release of dormant assets started with Labour and has been a cross-party achievement. My thanks, congratulations and appreciation also go to the financial institutions that have made the money available.
I am pleased with the Government’s proposals, including the consultation on the potential introduction of a community wealth fund. My congratulations and appreciation to the Minister for including that as a possibility, and to my hon. Friend the Member for Sedgefield (Paul Howell) and the right hon. Member for Kingston upon Hull North (Dame Diana Johnson) for their work in bringing that idea forward.
There are other great ideas—we could abolish personal debt by capitalising credit unions with this money or distribute it direct to community foundations in our constituencies—but I think that the community wealth fund is the best idea. I hope that we will see the money going into civil society and social infrastructure and into supporting the great levelling-up agenda to which the Government are committed. This is a tremendous Bill, and I very much support what the Government are doing.

Jim Shannon: It is always a pleasure to speak in these debates. I thank the Government and the Minister for all they have done to make this Bill happen. Clauses 12 and 29, to which the Minister’s amendments refer, indicate things that the Democratic Unionist party wish to see, and I let him know that our party will support the Government tonight. However, I now wish to speak to new clause 1.
I agree that there must be further provision for dormant assets. Why not make good use of funds that would ultimately lie dormant unless further action was taken?  The Bill aims to expand the current criteria, which will come with some great benefits, so it is great to speak on an important issue such as this. I welcome the Bill and look forward to the debate’s conclusion.
The Bill’s core purpose is to extend the dormant assets scheme to other financial assets, which could generate an additional £880 million of contributions. The figures are gigantic when we think on them, and they indicate where the Bill is going and what it can achieve. The Bill has three main functions: to track dormant account owners and reunite them with their account; to allow account owners to reclaim any amount they would have been eligible for; and to allow firms to partake as a voluntary process. The Bill will expand the assets involved further, creating a more sustainable economic success rate, make it a requirement for firms to get involved, and remove further financial restrictions. It is a win-win for the Government and for the Minister in particular.
The dormant assets scheme currently supports and boosts, by some £800 million, innovative, long-term programmes that aim to address some of the most pressing social and environmental issues. As I said, its expansion through the Bill will unlock an additional £880 million. It is stated that the Bill’s benefits will be felt across the whole of the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland. I for one would like reassurances from the Minister that it will extend to Northern Ireland and that we will benefit as well. The potential for benefit in the UK mainland is great, but we also want to see it, if we can, in Northern Ireland.
Thus far, the scheme has benefited many foundations. The Youth Futures Foundation, which has undertaken significant work to tackle youth unemployment, got some £90 million, and Big Society Capital got over £400 million to tackle homelessness. These are great projects. The Bill makes money available to address social issues; how could anyone not say that that is great?
Also at the heart of this scheme is securing protections for those who own any of the financial assets involved. Dormant assets remain the property of their owners, who can reclaim any money owed to them in full at any time. In Northern Ireland, the Dormant Accounts Fund NI works to support the voluntary, community and social enterprise sector, and we can see the benefits immediately. In Northern Ireland more than 44,000 staff are employed in the sector, which accounts for 6% of the total Northern Ireland workforce. I would encourage all organisations to contact the National Lottery Community Fund to take advantage of the wonderful scheme that Northern Ireland has to offer.
I thank Members who have already contributed, and those who will contribute later, to a debate that has made clear the potential for a great economic impact following this expansion. I want to ensure that the devolved institutions can take advantage of this scheme as well, and that the funds generated in England are greater than those generated in Scotland and Northern Ireland. There must also be further engagement with local communities and smaller organisations to ensure that they are not left behind.
I acknowledge the benefits that the Bill has introduced so far, and I shall welcome further discussion and expansion to ensure that financial assets are not wasted and the money is put to good use. We have seen what the scheme can do; it can do more.

Claire Coutinho: I support the Government’s proposal for a public consultation on distributions to a new community wealth fund. We talk often and rightly in this House about levelling up, particularly on the Government side of the House. It is right that this a priority for the Government, but too often we talk as if the work of levelling up were a job for Government alone. I firmly believe that the best decisions for communities are rarely made for them rather than by them. That is why we should treat communities across the country as the legitimate decision makers that they are. We all know that strong community leaders can transform a local community We will all have seen that on our patches. I could name many from East Surrey, including Janine Battersby in Woldingham, and Kay Hammond and the Calvers in Smallfield. With their dedication, charisma and get-up-and-go, they forge friendships, support those who need extra help, and put the local needs of their communities in front of those who might be able to meet them.
Let me give the House a brief example of this in action. I recently visited the residents group Ambition Lawrence Weston. On the edge of Bristol, Lawrence Weston had for too long had been used as a dumping ground for social housing tenants with complex needs. They were trapped in a negative cycle. Low housing costs made it attractive for the council to use it to temporarily house people, often with complex needs. That created disruption and fracturing within the community, which in turn drove low housing costs—and so the cycle went on.
However, with the support of the Local Trust’s Big Local community fund programme, the residents decided that they had had enough of things being done to them instead of for them. With some initial capital support from the community fund, they have transformed the area by building a new community centre, bringing in a new supermarket, introducing a local lettings policy, and bidding directly for Government funds themselves. They have a solar farm and even a wind turbine to tackle fuel poverty. I am in awe of that team. I have seen similar developments on my own patch: we have a community fund, Your Fund Surrey, and I am working with some brilliant people in Whyteleafe, Deano, Sara and Marcus, who are pushing to set up their own community centre and are doing it brilliantly.
It was a relatively small amount of funding that made these developments possible, but that funding unleashed the really important thing: the leadership, ambition and energy of a group of remarkable, community-minded individuals, which has made such a difference. Without these funds, that would have been wasted. I believe that the community wealth fund can unlock that level of ambition and energy from individuals up and down the country, and I am pleased to support amendment 2.

Diana R. Johnson: I welcome amendment 2 to clause 29. Those who have followed the passage of this Bill from its introduction in the other place to its Report stage today will know that along with other members of the all-party parliamentary group for “left behind” neighbourhoods, including my excellent co-chair, the hon. Member for Sedgefield (Paul Howell), I have long been advocating the establishment of a community wealth fund as part of the extended dormant assets scheme. The Government’s  amendment proposes that a national consultation on the distribution of dormant assets should include consultation on the distribution of these moneys to a community wealth fund through including them on the existing list of beneficiaries set out in the original legislation on dormant assets. Such a fund would  be aimed at developing social infrastructure in the  most left-behind neighbourhoods of the country—neighbourhoods such as Bransholme and Orchard Park in my constituency of Hull North. They are communities that not only suffer from extreme levels of disadvantage and deprivation, but experience significant deficits in their local community fabric. As research from the all-party group has found, residents of these communities experience well-below average outcomes across a whole range of indicators. For example, our recent report on health inequalities found that people living in left-behind neighbourhoods have among the worst health outcomes in England, with growing disparities between them and the rest of the country, including the most shocking statistic that a person from one of those neighbourhoods was 46% more likely to die during the covid pandemic.
If the Government want levelling up to be a success, they must reach these communities, which, for far too long, have missed out on their fair share of resources. Funding has to be for the long term, supporting transformational change at the neighbourhood level. The principles underlying the dormant assets legislation make it clear that the money from the scheme should be used to have a positive impact on society by contributing dormant assets for systematic change. I am very encouraged by the Government’s amendment, which upholds these principles for the use of dormant asset funding, and I very much welcome the inclusion in the Bill of consulting on the distribution to community wealth funds.
I am not alone in welcoming amendment 2. As well as parliamentarians from the all-party group, the proposal for a community wealth fund is backed by a cross-sector alliance of more than 470 organisations, which include 40 councils and combined authorities. I thank Local Trust, the secretariat for our all-party group, for all the work that it has done to promote the role of community wealth funds. I thank the Minister in particular for engaging with us on a cross-party basis and listening to the case that we have been making on behalf of those communities that have the least.
I very much welcome the Government’s amendment and look forward to working with the Minister and the Government on how a community wealth fund can be established and implemented swiftly on the conclusion of the national consultation. I hope that Members from across the House will support the amendment.

Paul Howell: I thank my hon. Friends the Members for Devizes (Danny Kruger), and for East Surrey (Claire Coutinho), the hon. Member for Strangford (Jim Shannon) and the right hon. Member for Kingston upon Hull North (Dame Diana Johnson) for the comments they have made already. I cannot state how much I welcome the Bill being brought to the House and how successful and efficient its passage has been. I thank the Under-Secretary of State for Digital,  Culture, Media and Sport, my hon. Friend the Member for Mid Worcestershire (Nigel Huddleston), for tabling his amendment to clause 29. It represents an important step towards establishing a community wealth fund that would level up the social fabric of our most left-behind neighbourhoods across England.
I wish to say a few words on behalf of the all-party group. I know that the Government are committed to regenerating communities that suffer from both extreme levels of poverty and high levels of community need—communities such as Ferryhill, Trimdon and Thornley in my Sedgefield constituency, and communities across the country, from the north of England, through the midlands and down to the coastal communities on the south coast where residents often feel forgotten and cut off from support or funding.
I thank the Minister for meeting me and my right hon. Friend the Member for Kingston upon Hull North, my fellow co-chair of the all-party group for left-behind neighbourhoods, to hear our representations and to understand the importance of what we are trying to achieve and how we can address this through the community wealth fund. Together, with other members of our all-party group, I look forward to a continued dialogue with Government and with colleagues across the House and in the other place on how such a fund can quickly be rolled out on swift passage of the Bill and the planned national consultation.
Numerous evidence sessions and research conducted by the all-party group since it was established in June 2020 have shone a light on the high levels of need  and deprivation that exist in these communities and neighbourhoods and the issues faced by the residents who live there. Most recently, a report found that the people in these communities live shorter lives and spend more years in ill-health than those in the rest of the country. These findings have rightly captured the interests of national media and are another sobering testament to the fact that action is urgently needed to level up social, economic and environmental outcomes in deprived communities across the country. I look forward to what the levelling-up White Paper has to say about that, and I know that our all-party group will be keenly following those developments.
It is clear that transforming left-behind neighbourhoods is a long-term job. To deliver on that agenda, we need to go beyond physical infrastructure investment—welcome though that is in bringing hope to an area, as I know from my campaign work to restore local rail links such as Ferryhill station. Good local transport provision is key to levelling up, because it boosts connectivity in disconnected areas.
To level up successfully, however, and truly make a long-lasting difference to people’s lives, we must address the rebuilding of social infrastructure. Social infrastructure —places to meet, exchange ideas and take part in civic life—glues communities together. It underpins the vibrant local life that everyone seeks to be part of in their communities; it cements our trust and pride in our local heritage and the places where we live; and it provides us with something to rely on in times of crisis.
As the amendment explains, a community wealth fund would give long-term financial support for the provision of local amenities and other social infrastructure in a way that is led from the bottom up. As was said earlier, we must allow it to be done by people, not to  people. As the Government have acknowledged on several occasions during the Bill’s passage, local people are best placed to identify what is needed to make their communities a better place to live.
In our evidence sessions, we heard first-hand the amazing work being done by communities up and down the country, and how powerful an impact local people can have when they work together to improve local outcomes with the right resources and support. We heard truly inspiring stories of communities in neighbourhoods from Bristol to Hartlepool taking the lead in levelling up their local area through widening access to opportunities and employment outcomes for young people, tackling fuel poverty and community led climate action.
Climate action is, of course, an increasingly important focus of activity, given the transition to net zero, and one where left-behind neighbourhoods are particularly at risk of falling further behind as a result of the economic restructuring under way. We therefore need to equip them with the confidence, capacity and resources through patient and long-term support to take action on what matters most to them and to transform their communities for the better. The community wealth fund proposal serves exactly that purpose. It builds on research and learning from previous regeneration policies, which all support the notion that community involvement is essential in achieving lasting change.
As already said, the community wealth fund is supported by more than 470 private, public and civic society organisations that have joined forces to form the community wealth fund alliance to call for the creation of such a fund. To reiterate what I said when presenting my ten-minute rule Bill in December, I believe that it would supercharge the levels of community confidence and capacity in left-behind areas.
In the long run, the social capital that is developed will be reflected in residents’ ability to create and lead sustainable strategies on how they can make change happen locally and tap into the wider opportunities offered on a regional level. In short, the investment would pay significant dividends in the longer run through funding from dormant assets at no extra cost to the public. We are presented with the opportunity to create a permanent endowment for communities in need.
For much of the hard work on the community wealth fund, I thank Local Trust and its team, particularly its chief executive Matt Leach. I know that the work is not over—in many respects, the real work starts now—and that I and others will no doubt be working closely with Local Trust to ensure that the fund becomes a reality.
I finish by thanking the Minister again for tabling the amendment to clause 29. It is heartening to hear the Government emphasise the importance of hyperlocal decision making for levelling up. I look forward to working with the Minister, the Government and our APPG to develop social infrastructure and boost civic pride in communities across the country.

John Nicolson: I know that the Westminster press corps has been waiting for something exciting to happen in Parliament today, so I am glad to be able to help to provide it. It is good to see the Secretary of State in her place fresh from her “Channel 4 News” interview triumph.
The SNP welcomes the Bill and the expansion of the dormant assets scheme. The extra £880 million available as a result is welcome. The scheme has already delivered £745 million for social and environmental initiatives. By expanding the list of assets that qualify for the scheme, up to £1.7 billion more could be available for use.
I draw the Minister’s attention to the remarks made about the Bill in the other place, although I am sure that he is aware of them. Peers wanted clarity on its potential costs and more detailed impact assessments for the expanded scheme. Baroness Barker specifically warned that these details were important, so the scheme does not become a
“piggyback fund for government when times are tough.”—[Official Report, House of Lords, 26 May 2021; Vol. 1039, c. 812.]
SNP Members welcome the Labour party amendment proposing an annual assessment of the health and governance of authorised reclaimed funds; this will, I think, help to assuage Baroness Barker’s concerns. Also, as a principle, the more scrutiny is given to this legislation, the better it will function.
It is good, of course, to see that the Bill makes some changes to distribution in England. Now the Secretary of State will have more freedom to spread assets through secondary legislation. That allows England to catch up with Scotland, which already has such an ability. As Lord Triesman highlighted in the other place, it was the example set by the devolved nations, whose innovative thinking in how they spend the funds allotted to them, that provided the impetus for the expansion of the scheme that the Bill presents. What the pandemic has shown is that the needs of the population can change dramatically and suddenly. Flexibility in secondary legislation is a useful tool to deal with that, and we must continue to ensure that there is adequate scrutiny.
We welcome the requirement for the Secretary of State to launch a public consultation and to consult the national lottery. The Community Fund must always be consulted before replacing or changing an order. However, it may be desirable to expand this consultation beyond the national lottery Community Fund and to include devolved Ministers responsible for spending in their nations, and representatives of the voluntary and social enterprise sectors.
It is reassuring to see that the expanded scheme will focus on reuniting owners with their dormant assets. With the expanded range of qualifying products, it is estimated that £3.7 billion-worth of products are lying dormant. For all the good that the schemes do for various charities, it is of the utmost importance that people are reunited with their assets. With the elderly and the vulnerable, especially those without digital skills, among those most likely to lose access or connection to their accounts in an increasingly digitised world, reunification efforts are more important than ever. That is why the SNP welcomes the enhanced tracing and verification measures, which could lead to £2 billion being returned to members of the public.

Nigel Huddleston: I thank all right hon. and hon. Members for their contribution to the debate and for the constructive way in which everyone has engaged with the Bill throughout its passage. I thank in particular those who have spoken this evening. My hon. Friend the Member for Devizes (Danny Kruger)  has made his points about community wealth funds frequently and passionately, as have the hon. Member for Sedgefield (Paul Howell) and the right hon. Member for Kingston upon Hull North (Dame Diana Johnson), whom I will acknowledge again later. I can confirm for the hon. Member for Strangford (Jim Shannon) that the expansion will cover Northern Ireland. My hon. Friend the Member for East Surrey (Claire Coutinho) again spoke passionately about the impact that dormant assets funding will have on local communities. We should never forget that.
The hon. Member for Ochil and South Perthshire (John Nicolson) mentioned the principle of additionality, as did my opposite numbers on the Labour Front Bench, the hon. Members for Pontypridd (Alex Davies-Jones) and for Manchester, Withington (Jeff Smith). That principle underlies the Bill absolutely and completely. Regarding expansion, the Secretary of State is to conduct periodic reviews—within three years and then again in five years. The hon. Member for Ochil and South Perthshire mentioned that Scotland currently operates on a different basis, and that is one of the reasons why we have sought to expand where dormant assets money can be used.
I particularly thank my opposite numbers on the Labour Front Bench for their constructive contributions. Throughout, we have agreed on the principles. It is nice and good to see a Bill through its various stages with such a degree of consensus. Although we sometimes disagree on elements of detail, on the Bill’s overwhelming purpose and underlying principles there is complete agreement, and I appreciate the constructive way they have engaged with me.
However, I am afraid we do not believe that new clause 1—a proposal we debated in Committee—is necessary, largely on the basis that there is considerable oversight already, as I have explained before. Although the new clause refers to “authorised reclaim funds”, in practice it refers specifically to Reclaim Fund Ltd, as it is currently the only authorised reclaim fund in the United Kingdom. RFL publishes its audited annual reports and accounts on its website annually. In 2019 the Office for National Statistics classified RFL to the central Government subsector, and in April 2021 it therefore became a Treasury-owned arm’s length body.
Now that RFL is an ALB, Parliament has greater oversight of its operations and financial information. RFL has been consolidated into HM Treasury’s accounts, which are laid before Parliament on a yearly basis. Furthermore, it is standard practice for the annual reports and accounts of ALBs, together with any report from the auditors, to be laid before Parliament by the sponsor Department. That will happen for the first time this year.
Parliament will therefore have the opportunity to view RFL’s full statutory accounts and, like all ALBs, RFL cannot publish its accounts until they have been laid before Parliament. The Comptroller and Auditor General, operating through the National Audit Office, will audit RFL’s accounts from financial year 2021-22. The Government do not recognise a need for bespoke arrangements under the Bill, as Parliament already has  greater oversight of RFL’s operations and financial information. I assure Parliament that the Treasury has a robust governance structure in place that ensures that it has oversight of any potential risk of insolvency. For those reasons, I ask that the House does not support new clause 1.
Government amendment 1 is a minor and technical amendment that will ensure that the principle of full restitution continues to be upheld, ensuring that people can reclaim the amount they would have been owed had the transfer to the scheme not happened. It clarifies that money derived from collective scheme investments cannot be transferred into the scheme as client money.
Unfortunately, this amendment will have the effect of excluding collective scheme investments held by investment platforms and ISA fund managers from the scheme at this time. Bringing them into scope would require complex technical work, and we are working with the industry to understand if and how that can be accomplished in future under the power to extend the scheme through regulations.
Finally, Government amendment 2 responds to a key theme in the debates over community wealth funds, on which there has been considerable discussion this evening. It is testimony to the cross-party support for the scheme and the Bill that this issue has been talked about so much. I am very grateful for the spirit of positive collaboration that has been shown throughout the Bill’s stages. It is in that spirit that we are placing in the Bill our commitment to consult on community wealth funds.
I especially thank the right hon. Member for Kingston upon Hull North and my hon. Friend the Member for Sedgefield, the co-chairs of the APPG for “left behind” neighbourhoods, for helping the Government reach this shared position, as well as all those who have made representations. In her speech, the right hon. Lady spoke about creating opportunity, aspiration and inclusivity. I assure her that that is the instruction from my Secretary of State every single day in the Department—it is absolutely what we are here to do.
We have heard both here and in the other place of the many benefits of a community wealth fund model. The Government are committed to giving this important cause its due consideration. Amendment 2 will ensure that the consultation, which will launch as soon as possible following Royal Assent, must include CWFs as an option, along with the current causes of youth, financial inclusion and social investment, which have had widespread support over the past decade.
I understand that there have been concerns that the consultation process will cause undue delays to the money being released. Let me assure hon. Members that that will not be the case. The consultation will not delay the release of funds; rather, it will run in parallel with other necessary preparations.
Once again, I thank colleagues on both sides of the House for the constructive and collaborative debate today. For the reasons I have outlined, I ask that the House does not support new clause 1 and supports the Government amendments.

Alex Davies-Jones: I wish to put on the record my thanks to hon. Members. I am encouraged by our collegiate debate, in stark contrast to the scenes on the Floor of the House earlier today. This evening’s debate shows that Parliament is at its best when we all work  together across parties to deliver for our communities. More needs to be made of what we can do when we choose to work together.
As I mentioned, it was a Labour Government who first advanced legislation to place dormant assets from bank and building society accounts into the reclaim fund after significant efforts were made to contact the owners of those assets. For this reason, we are broadly supportive of the Bill and its main aims to expand the scheme. We therefore continue to welcome attempts to incorporate a commitment to community wealth funds, which have the potential to support communities across the nation that have been left behind in recent years.
The Minister knows that Labour Members outlined our concerns at length in Committee and on Report, and my colleagues and I made particular reference to some of the flaws in the Bill that we ultimately sought to correct. It is therefore somewhat disappointing that our concerns on the health and governance of the reclaim fund have not been taken on board, particularly as transparency and scrutiny are such essential facets of our work in this place.
In Committee, the Minister argued that Reclaim Fund Ltd is
“responsible for determining the appropriate proportion of funding that it can prudently release… The amount that RFL reserves for future repayment claims is…based on actuarial modelling and assessment of…risk factors, following guidance from the Financial Conduct Authority.”––[Official Report, Dormant Assets Public Bill Committee, 11 January 2022; c. 34-35.]
Of course, independence from the Government is vital but it is also important that the Secretary of State makes a regular assessment if this fund is to be available for future generations. I sincerely hope the Minister will take on board our concerns and discuss with the Secretary of State, who is in her place, and departmental colleagues the potential for an annual report, which would be extremely beneficial for those who rely on funds from this important scheme.
Although Labour supports the Bill, we believe the Government have missed several opportunities. I urge the Secretary of State to speed up the timetable to allow for these much-needed funds to reach the communities that need them most. I look forward to closely following the development of the first public consultation. I beg to ask leave to withdraw the clause.
Clause, by leave, withdrawn.

Clause 12 - Transfer of eligible client money to reclaim fund

Amendment made: 1, page 12, line 9, at end insert—
“(4A) The reference in subsection (4)(b) to money that could be transferred as mentioned in section 8(1)(a) includes money   held by an investment institution that is not within the definition in section 8(3) which—
(a) is proceeds of the conversion by the investment institution of a collective scheme investment into a right to payment of an amount, and
(b) could, if it were held by an investment institution falling within section 8(3), be transferred as mentioned in section 8(1)(a).”—(Craig Mackinlay.)
This amendment clarifies that money held by an investment institution not within clause 8(3) is not client money if it is the proceeds of a conversion to cash of a collective scheme investment and would be capable of being transferred to a reclaim fund if the holder was an investment institution within clause 8(3).

Clause 29 - Distribution of dormant assets money for meeting English expenditure

Amendment made: 2, page 22, line 21, at end insert—
“(3A) In carrying out the first public consultation under subsection (3)(a) the Secretary of State must invite views as to whether the permitted distributions should be, or include, any one or more of the following—
(a) distributions for the purpose of the provision of services, facilities or opportunities to meet the needs of young people;
(b) distributions for the purpose of the development of individuals’ ability to manage their finances or the improvement of access to personal financial services;
(c) distributions to social investment wholesalers (within the meaning of section 18);
(d) distributions to community wealth funds.
(3B) For the purposes of subsection (3A) “community wealth fund” means a fund which gives long term financial support (whether directly or indirectly) for the provision of local amenities or other social infrastructure.”—(Craig Mackinlay.)
This amendment requires the first public consultation under section 18A to include the options of permitting the English dormant asset money distributions currently permitted by section 18(1) and distributions to community wealth funds, whether or not in addition to other permitted purposes or recipients.
Bill read the Third time and passed, with amendments.

Business of the House

Ordered,
That, at this day’s sitting, the Speaker shall put the Questions necessary to dispose of proceedings on the motion in the name of Mr Jacob Rees-Mogg relating to the Independent Parliamentary Standards Authority not later than one hour after the commencement of proceedings on the motion for this Order; such Questions shall include the Questions on any Amendments selected by the Speaker which may then be moved; proceedings may continue, though opposed, until any hour, and may be entered upon after the moment of interruption; and Standing Order No. 41A (Deferred divisions) shall not apply.—(Craig Mackinlay.)

Independent Parliamentary Standards Authority

[Relevant document: First Report of the Speaker’s Committee for the Independent Parliamentary Standards Authority, Appointment of IPSA Board Member, HC 1032, published 13 January 2022.]
Motion made, and Question proposed,
That an humble Address be presented to Her Majesty, praying that Her Majesty will appoint Lea Paterson to the office of ordinary member of the Independent Parliamentary Standards Authority for a period of five years with effect from 14 March 2022.—(Stuart Andrew.)

Jessica Morden: In the absence of the Leader of the House, I rise to support the motion. There has been a fair and rigorous process to appoint the new member of the Independent Parliamentary Standards Authority board to fill the vacancy created by Richard Lloyd, who has gone on to chair IPSA. I put on the record the official Opposition’s gratitude and thanks to the recruitment panel—particularly Philippa Helme, the chair of the panel—which was conducted with due care and attention. It was noted that Ms Paterson expressed to the recruitment panel her full commitment to public service as her primary motivator, and I know we wish her well as she begins her term on the IPSA board.

John Spellar: I will give the Leader of the House the time to recover from the other duties that he has been undertaking during the course of what has undoubtedly been a busy day.
I know nothing of Ms Lea Paterson, either favourable or unfavourable, although it is a reasonable CV. However, once again, the appointment is from a very narrow band of our society. Let us look at the document that specifies who can be on IPSA. By the way, all these experts that it has have not led to a better service for Members of the House. Quite frankly, it is absolutely shocking. The administrative burden on Members of Parliament gets worse and worse for what should be basic, simple jobs.
Let us look at the jobs. At least one Member must have held high judicial office—that has kept the lawyers happy, with a sinecure. Another one must be an auditor, so we have looked after the accountants. Another one is a person who has previously been a Member. This vacancy, however, is not specific; it is a general vacancy. Once again, did they go out and look across the broad spectrum of our society, for people with experience? Well, they went off to recruitment consultants Veredus, to scour beyond a mile of Westminster to find somebody who fitted the bill. I think that is extremely unlikely. I do not think they went to the north, the midlands, Scotland or Wales. They tried to reach out, by going to The Times appointments adverts, which does not actually have a very high circulation in Smethwick or, I expect, many other constituencies. It is an excellent newspaper, but it is not the way to reach many people in our society who have great experience.
Interestingly enough, many successful firms are far more adventurous in their recruitment processes. Who do they often look for to bring into the ranks of management? They look for capable shop stewards.   Sometimes, in my experience they were the worst ones to deal with because they knew the ropes. These are people who really know how industry and society work: people who are running hospitals; ward sisters who are running wards; people who are managing our transport and logistics system. Those are people who understand how life works.
We are supposed to be running an expenses system, yet we are only recruiting, once again, from the great and the good. That is a problem across Government appointments and society. Then we wonder why government in this country is so badly managed? It is because we draw from such a narrow pool. I regret that the Opposition go along with that. There ought to be a root and branch examination to look at where we draw people from and what their work and life experience is. I hope that the Leader of the House, in dealing with the specific, will also address the general point I am making about how we should broaden our society.

Jacob Rees-Mogg: I apologise for my momentary delay. The motion proposes that an Humble Address be presented to Her Majesty, praying that Her Majesty will appoint the person to the office of ordinary member of the Independent Parliamentary Standards Authority for a period of five years, with effect from 14 March 2022.
The Speaker’s Committee for the Independent Parliamentary Standards Authority produced a report that is tagged to the motion—its first report of 2022. I have no doubt that Members—the right hon. Member for Warley (John Spellar) is certainly one of them—will have studied the report carefully before agreeing to the motion. I thank Philippa Helme for running the selection process diligently.
I would like to try to respond to what the right hon. Gentleman said, because it is important that people are drawn or apply from as wide a background as possible. That is something that he has tirelessly encouraged, and it goes along with the Government policy of trying to move Ministries outside SW1 to other parts of the country, to ensure greater involvement of people up and down the country from various degrees of experience. I know that Mr Speaker is keen to encourage applicants who do not necessarily fit the entirely traditional bill. I have to say, I think he thinks that only applicants from Lancashire would be suitable for most posts, whatever that post happens to be.

John Spellar: Can I put it to the Leader of the House that time after time we get recommendations to appointments, and they all come from the same narrow social circle? It is not even, as it was with the traditional Tory party, that they come from industry. We almost never have anybody from industry; they are always from the professions and the City of London. The person we are being recommended was a journalist and then worked at the Bank of England. Could we not have somebody who worked for Jaguar Land Rover, either as a convenor or as the manager?

Jacob Rees-Mogg: The right hon. Gentleman makes a very fair point. I think we do want to fish in a bigger pool, and I think we should always be very concerned about what might broadly be called the quangocracy.  We do not want this country run by people who pass and bounce from quango to quango, and pick up nice appointments along the way.

Toby Perkins: In response to the point the Leader of the House has just made, with the earnest desire he expresses to ensure that we broaden the pool, what examples can he point to of how the recruitment panel attempted to broaden the pool in this particular case?

Jacob Rees-Mogg: The process of the recruitment panel and what it looked at is all set out in its report. It had quite a large number of applicants, and it has to be said that Lea Paterson was the outstanding applicant by a long margin. She is not a characteristic quangocrat: that has not been her career. Until recently, she was the executive director of people and culture at the Bank of England. She is currently an independent member of the University of Warwick remuneration committee. She has previously held a number of senior management positions at the Bank of England, including being the director of independent evaluation. Before working for the Bank, she was a journalist, as economics editor, at The Times. I am afraid I have a particular bias in favour of The Times, its being the great newspaper of record and having fantastic editors, particularly in the 1970s. Journalists are not typical quangocrats, it has to be said—they are normally the ones throwing stones into the pools of the quangocracy—so I do not think that is the type of person we are appointing today.
However, I do take very seriously the criticisms from the right hon. Member for Warley. It is really important that we try to attract people of ability from across the country, because that is what we are trying to do as Members of Parliament. We come together from across the country to try to support a Government who will act with wisdom and discernment, which I am glad to say is what we have at the moment. I hope that the right hon. Gentleman will continue his campaign, and I know that there are people sympathetic to it.
In the meantime, I am proud to be able to recommend this Humble Address to the House. If the appointment were to be made, Lea Paterson will serve on IPSA for five years. I commend this motion to the House.
Question put and agreed to.

Business without Debate

Delegated Legislation

Eleanor Laing: I propose, with the leave of the House, that we take motions 8 and 9 together.
Motion made, and Question put forthwith (Standing Order No. 118(6)),

National Health Service

That the draft Health and Social Care Act 2008 (Regulated Activities) (Amendment) Regulations 2022, which were laid before this House on 14 December 2021, be approved.

Dangerous Drugs

That the draft Misuse of Drugs Act 1971 (Amendment) Order 2022, which was laid before this House on 15 December 2021, be approved.—(Craig Whittaker.)
Question agreed to.

Petition

Petition - Stalking advocates

Toby Perkins: I rise to present this petition on the subject of stalking advocates. In June 2021, my constituent Gracie Spinks was murdered by somebody who had been stalking her for a considerable time. The murder absolutely shocked Chesterfield to its foundations, and her funeral brought the town to a standstill. In the light of that appalling event, my constituent Jackie Barnett-Wheatcroft brought together a petition, which was signed by over 17,500 people, on the issue of stalking advocates. It was a paper petition that was rushed out shortly after the appalling murder, and it did not comply with the exact terms of parliamentary petitions. Subsequently, an e-petition was formed—we have debated it today—which 100,000 people have signed. I also wanted to present a petition in Parliament, which I do today, signed by 204 of my constituents.
The petition reads:
“The petitioners therefore request that the House of Commons urge the Government to consider the concerns of the petitioners and take immediate action to reallocate funds to provide additional funding for stalking advocates in order to support victims of stalking.”
Following is the full text of the petition:
[The petition of residents of the United Kingdom,
Notes that the 2019/20 Crime Survey for England and Wales estimated that 3.6% of adults aged 16-74 experienced stalking in the last year, equivalent to an estimated 1.5 million victims, 977,000 women and 526,000 men; declares that stalking advocates for victims of stalking are invaluable due to the specialist independent support, advice and advocacy that they provide; further that stalking advocates provide victims with a main point of contact and support throughout their journey; further that additional funding for stalking advocates to work with victims of stalking would help support victims; further that increased support would prevent unnecessary distress and suffering of victims and their families; and further that additional support should also be given to police to allow cases to be investigated more thoroughly, possibly preventing threats to life.
The petitioners therefore request that the House of Commons urge the Government to consider the concerns of the petitioners and take immediate action to reallocate funds to provide additional funding for stalking advocates in order to support victims of stalking.
And the petitioners remain, etc.]
[P002710]

NHS Hysteroscopy Treatment

Motion made, and Question proposed, That this House do now adjourn.—(Craig Whittaker.)

Lyn Brown: I am, frankly, very disappointed to have to be raising this issue again in this House. This is the ninth time I have spoken about this, and it is more than eight years since my first speech on this topic. However, the problem of pain and trauma caused during hysteroscopies has not gone away. I want to pay tribute to the Campaign Against Painful Hysteroscopy, who do so much to let women know that they are not alone, that their experience has not been singular, that they were not making it up and they were not hysterical; they were experiencing great pain and discomfort. That campaign offers comfort and a productive outlet for their utterly justifiable anger. My hope is that this Minister will not only take this issue away, but will commit today to getting action at a national level, because it is a true scandal that these horrific abuses are still taking place. Let me be really clear with people. Every time I speak, I have new stories, because women hear my speech as they reel from fresh abuses and they get in touch. So all these stories that I am going to recount today have happened since my last speech on this issue.
I will start with the story of Jane, who had a hysteroscopy late last year. Jane had been warned by her excellent GP that the specialist might attempt to talk her into a hysteroscopy without anaesthetic, and that she had the right to insist on proper pain relief. After all, she has several well-recognised risk factors for pain during hysteroscopy, including endometriosis, a tilted uterus, and never having had children. Fully aware of that, Jane received a letter for an appointment about the results of an ultrasound scan she had had. The letter said nothing about a hysteroscopy, and nothing about her risks or her right to anaesthetic, so she went along expecting simply to have a discussion with a consultant about the results of the scan. But when she got there, she was informed that the consultant wanted to do a hysteroscopy there and then. She said immediately she wanted a general anaesthetic, and explained that she had had terrible pain from similar procedures in the past. Shamefully, the consultant’s response was to laugh in her face and say
“if we gave a general anaesthetic to every woman who had a hysteroscopy the queue would be a mile long”.
To laugh at a woman in distress in that position, I find abhorrent.
Jane was scared. She shook but she felt she had no choice but to comply. She told the doctor and nurse what she had heard about the pain, but they told her not to believe everything she read. She told me that
“as soon as the speculum went in I felt immense pain that was absolutely unbearable...the doctor was having difficulty finding the opening to my cervix so twisted the speculum and dug around, which caused indescribable pain, I felt I might pass out, I had tunnel vision”—
and she was “shaking and hyperventilating.”
At that point, thank heavens, the procedure was stopped but, unbelievably, the doctor said that he simply did not understand why Jane was in so much pain and causing such a fuss, which only worried her more,  because it increased her concern that she had cancer. Even after all that, the doctor was still unwilling to consider a proper anaesthetic. Instead, he prescribed a hormonal pessary and suggested that she come back for another go in a fortnight.
Jane was in a fog. She does not remember anything other than getting home and curling up on the sofa, shaking with shock. She has relived the experience over and over, unable to move on because of the threat that she would have to go through it all again without pain relief. She has had trouble sleeping and has had to take time off work because she cannot concentrate. Understandably, Jane believes that she has post-traumatic stress disorder. She told me that she was actually more afraid of having another brutal experience than she was of dealing with possible cancer. How much will the late detection of cancers resulting from this fear cost our NHS and our families? I emphasise to the Minister that this is not major surgery; it could be essentially painless if only proper anaesthetics were offered.
The last I heard, Jane will now have a hysteroscopy with a general anaesthetic. I am praying that she does not have cancer, because if she does, the months-long delay caused by her mistreatment and the callous attitude of that doctor could be deadly to her. What estimate have the Government made of the added cost of failed hysteroscopies that must then be repeated with anaesthetic? Jane is not alone in her experience and in having understandable distrust of the NHS and doctors as a result of her trauma.

Jim Shannon: I commend the hon. Lady on her speech. I was there the last time that she brought this issue to the House, as I am tonight, because my wife has been through the experience that the hon. Lady referred to. As a result, I think it is important that I am here to support her not just for my wife, but for every other lady across the United Kingdom. Pain relief is a way of providing much needed reassurance for women who are having hysteroscopies. This is a potentially life-changing treatment and women must be enabled to be as comfortable as possible—I see how important that is. Some 35% of the women who undergo anaesthesia-free hysteroscopies reported severe pain. Does the hon. Lady agree that the pain medications and anaesthesia must be readily available for those who need it? No one should have to live in this day and age with severe pain that cannot be taken care of.

Lyn Brown: I agree with the hon. Gentleman and I am grateful for his intervention. I know he has been in these debates with me, and he makes the same point: no woman should have to go through this. No woman should be held down while procedures happen because they are screaming with pain and they want the pain to stop.
Another woman who contacted me about a hysteroscopy that took place last year told me that she had never experienced so much pain—not from a hip operation, nor from having her spleen removed. As a result of her traumatic experience, she now has anxiety and has been prescribed tablets by her GP just to help her function with the day-to-day. Like Jane, she is losing sleep and no doubt her broader health has been harmed by this. She does not know whether she has cancer, but she told me that she is now too scared to go to the hospital for anything.
There are so many stories that I could have told today. I am sent so many of them, despite the fact that the issue does not get a huge amount of press. Women who experience this are seeking out me and the charity I work with to tell us about it. If there were more publicity, more women would come forward. I really hope that the Minister understands that this is an issue of patient safety, but also an issue of common decency. It is an issue of confidence in the medical professions and the NHS, and it will be costing us all, both in money and in lives, because problems simply are not being caught early enough.

Liz Twist: I have the privilege of co-chairing the all-party parliamentary group on women’s health. We held a meeting at the end of last year to talk about women and the health service, and I must admit that the meeting lit up when one of the medical people spoke about women’s experiences and, in particular, hysteroscopy. I could not believe what happened on my Twitter feed immediately afterwards. So many women were sharing their experiences, listening and saying, “We are entitled to have our experiences of pain validated, and to not have to go through that pain.” Does my hon. Friend agree that the women’s health strategy, which we will be talking about increasingly often, must involve accepting those experiences and seeking to listen more to women, validate their experiences and ensure that the right anaesthetic and treatments are provided?

Lyn Brown: I entirely agree with my hon. Friend, and that will indeed be an ask I have of the Minister at the conclusion of my contribution. My hon. Friend is right: women are not listened to. When they tell a doctor, “This hurts. I am in pain and I can’t bear it,” their experiences are not considered valid. They are told that they are being hysterical or overreacting and that they need to be as strong as the other woman he saw last night, last week or whenever, and to not be such a baby in demanding that the procedure be stopped.
Another case from last year is that of Sandy. When Sandy was referred for a hysteroscopy, she was told that pain was a risk, but the information that followed about local pain relief gave her false reassurance. She assumed that it meant some kind of anaesthetic. When she met the clinician, he told her that it would be like period cramps. When she asked about pain relief, he just repeated, “No more than just period cramps, if there’s any pain at all.”
Sandy was well acquainted with period pains. She had had coils inserted and had given vaginal birth twice, one with no pain relief, so she knew she was tough and she thought she would be fine. But when the hysteroscope reached Sandy’s uterus, she felt
“the most incredible, searing, tearing pain I have ever experienced. I found the arms of the bed to grab onto and could hear myself shouting no no no stop stop stop.”
Madam Deputy Speaker, you will be glad to hear that on this occasion the clinician did actually stop, but I would say that by that point the damage had already been done. Sandy has no memory of any questions asked or what the clinicians said to her afterwards. She just remembers the pain, the shaking and the shock. She was completely and utterly dazed, but scant minutes after enduring this, Sandy was ushered out the door. She was given no time to rest and recover, and she was  so confused because she had been made to feel that she had made a terrible fuss about nothing. Sandy then had to drive herself home. She told me that she has gone from being fearless and confident to being terrified of going back at all.
Finally, I want to mention Penny. She told me what happened after her “brutally painful failed hysteroscopy”. She strongly, and understandably, believes that she was misled about the risk of pain, because if she had known, there is no way she would have consented to having the procedure with just painkillers. Immediately after Penny went through the same agony that I have just described, she had an assessment with a nurse. The nurse told Penny how she had seen many women like her traumatised and in tears after hysteroscopies. The nurse said that she would never, ever go without a full anaesthetic herself, and that to do the procedure on women with no anaesthetic was barbaric. Penny was deeply and rightly angry to hear this, and the nurse was very clear that women were going through this without being fully informed of the risks.
Let us be really clear: the women I have spoken of today are the tip of a massive iceberg. That nurse is right, the GP I mentioned earlier in the debate is right, and there are many others within the NHS who recognise that this is simply unacceptable. So what needs to change? Frankly, there is still a massive problem with the attitude that many doctors take towards women patients. Our words and our wishes are ignored, and when our words are ignored, our rights are ignored. That has got to end, and I believe that that takes a culture of change. I do not accept that there are just a few badly trained, uncaring or even sadistic doctors. There is a broader problem that the Government and the NHS must address.
The Government have talked previously about a women’s health agenda, and before that there was the women’s health taskforce. Now, there is going to be a women’s health strategy. Believe me, the word “strategy” is music to my ears, but I want a guarantee from the Minister today that tackling painful hysteroscopy will be a core issue. That is my first ask. The patient groups that have been raising this issue so forcefully over many years must have a seat at the table in discussing and monitoring that strategy. These issues are common and the structure of the NHS is complex and obscure; it is failing to listen. So we need to find ways to ensure that patient outcomes for hysteroscopies are measured and monitored alongside the strategy.
My second ask is for all NHS trusts to offer patients who need a hysteroscopy a full range of anaesthetics and to inform them accurately about the risk factors for serious pain, so that all women can make an informed decision. That will require more anaesthetists and theatre capacity for hysteroscopy patients. My third ask is that the Government ensure that this investment is made, and that the commissioning decisions required are being made by NHS trusts. In my view, this is something that the women’s health strategy should be measuring and monitoring, alongside robust evidence on women’s experiences of NHS hysteroscopy, over the coming years.
How many hospital trusts are actually following the guidance to offer anaesthetics up front to all hysteroscopy patients? How many offer a range of effective anaesthetics and have trained staff to discuss women’s risk factors so  that they are given an informed choice? How many women are forced to endure a traumatic failed hysteroscopy without pain relief, with public money wasted as a result, only to have another procedure under anaesthetic?
How many patients do not even know they are going to be asked to have a hysteroscopy until they attend an appointment, with all the pressure that that involves? Can Members imagine going to a doctor in a hospital because of a fear that they have cancer and that doctor telling them they are going to do a hysteroscopy right now? Can Members imagine how much pressure there is on a woman to accept that procedure there and then because of the fear of what might be there and how long they might have to wait? They do not want to upset the doctor, do they? They might have something really awful that needs to be attended to immediately.
Any women’s health strategy worth its name would make sure that the answers to the questions I have asked are known and that we are moving in the right direction on all those issues. I am delighted to say that the best practice tariff on hysteroscopy, which financially incentivised the mistreatment of women, is now gone. We had a system under which our hospitals were paid more for hysteroscopies done without anaesthetic than they were paid for those done with anaesthetic. I am thankful that that incentivised mistreatment of women has now gone. That is a massive achievement for the campaign.
Several previous Ministers have engaged with me on this issue—the hon. Member for Thurrock (Jackie Doyle-Price) was very good on it when we spoke—and I thank them for hearing me. One benefit is that trusts are now paid the same amount for out-patient and day-case hysteroscopies. That is far better than it was, but it can still cause problems, because day-case procedures with anaesthetic cost more. If a trust will not be compensated for the difference, it might still decide to try to limit access to pain relief, because it will know that if anaesthetic is given, it will not receive a benefit in kind to pay for that procedure. We need to know that individual trusts are actually changing their behaviour and attitude in response to the progress that has been made. If they are not, we might need further action to ensure that no trust will lose money by doing the right thing and providing the pain relief that a woman needs.
I am sure the Minister will be slightly alarmed by an increase in demand for anaesthetists and theatres, and we all understand the massive covid backlog that the Government and the NHS face. I reassure the Minister that both regional or spinal anaesthetic and intravenous sedation with anaesthesia may be good options for many hysteroscopy patients, depending on their needs and risk factors. The NHS has got to offer a real choice in the range of anaesthetics, not a false choice between a general anaesthetic and no effective pain relief at all. It is simply wrong that if a man needs a colonoscopy, the chances are that he will be offered an effective anaesthetic without question, whereas if a woman needs a hysteroscopy, they may be forced to endure such terrible trauma that it shakes them to the very core ,and then made to feel pathetic when they cry out in pain.
I am not going to stop raising this issue, and the courageous women I have been working with will not stop either. I want to work with the Minister on this issue, as I have with other Ministers in the past, and I  hope the Government engage fully, because we need to end this scandal and ensure that women are treated like human beings in every single part of our NHS.

Maria Caulfield: I congratulate the hon. Member for West Ham (Ms Brown) on securing this debate. I thank her for all her hard work. I am very sorry that she has been speaking about this issue for nine years and is still having to share some of the stories and experiences of women who have contacted her, whether that is Jane, who was unaware of the potential for pain when having such a procedure—women being investigated for endometriosis often wait eight to 10 years to get a diagnosis, so if there is an offer of a procedure to find the cause of their problems, of course they will grab it and not necessarily ask questions about what is involved; or Sandy, who got no information on pain relief at all, or Penny. Penny was warned by the nurse—often nurses are attuned to these things—and was worried about what the outcomes were, but went ahead with the procedure. These are shocking tales that should not be happening in this day and age. I appreciate everything that the hon. Lady says, and I offer that I will be happy to work with her on this issue.
As Members will be aware, hysteroscopy is an essential tool to get to the bottom of many complaints. Whether that is cancer, endometriosis, vaginal bleeding or pelvic pain, it is a necessary test. While other tests can be used, they do not necessarily get to the level of clinical detail that a hysteroscopy can provide for clinicians. It is therefore important that the test is available for women, but in a way that does not create the problems we have heard about this evening.
Many women can have the procedure as out-patients in 10 to 15 minutes and it can be relatively painless, but many women, as we have heard today, experience great pain, which puts them off from coming back if they need further procedures, as the hon. Lady has said. If they share that story with other women they know, it can put them off from coming forward, too.
Unfortunately the NHS does not collect data on the number of women who experience pain during a hysteroscopy or the women who fail to have the hysteroscopy and then need to have either a general anaesthetic or further anaesthetic later on. I am aware that the Campaign Against Painful Hysteroscopy estimates that between 5% and 25% of women are affected and have reported severe pain, and frankly that is not good enough. I welcome that NHS England will be meeting the campaign group on 4 February. I look forward to hearing the outcome of that meeting, and I will be following up any recommendations after that.
The hon. Lady is right that for many procedures a man would undertake, anaesthetic is probably routinely provided or offered. We need to ensure that the same applies to those procedures that women have to go through.
There are guidelines in place, and I spoke only last week to the president of the Royal College of Obstetricians and Gynaecologists, because I knew this debate was coming up. Those guidelines were published back in 2011, and they need updating. The guidelines focus on minimising pain and optimising the woman’s experience,  as well as making specific recommendations on how to reduce pain, but as the hon. Lady said, we do not have the information to know who is and is not following those guidelines. We are therefore not in a position to say whether, if those guidelines were followed, many women would not experience pain, and that is the difficulty we have. The data is therefore crucial.
In the last debate that the hon. Lady secured on this issue, which I think was in September 2020, my predecessor, the right hon. Member for Mid Bedfordshire (Ms Dorries), informed the House that to ensure the recommendations were robust and up to date, the royal college would be producing a second edition, in which it will assess whether the current guidelines are effective and are being used. The second edition is being jointly developed with the British Society for Gynaecological Endoscopy, and I am assured that patients’ voices will be at the heart of its development. The royal college has informed me that good progress is being made, and that it will have the updated guidelines by next year.

Lyn Brown: Can I ask specifically that we involve the campaign, because that would be one way of assuring me that the voices of patients are being heard?

Maria Caulfield: I said to the president that I would follow up after the debate, so I can certainly make that request.
The royal college has also said that it is producing a good practice paper specifically on pain relief and how informed decisions should be made, particularly in out-patient hysteroscopy procedures. It is going through the peer review process next month and will be published shortly afterwards. Once it is published, I would be very keen to hear from campaign representatives about whether they feel that those guidelines would make a difference to them in a practical session.
It is crucial that women who are offered a hysteroscopy are given the information they need to make an informed decision, given that they have sometimes waited a long time for the appointment and that serious clinical conditions can be diagnosed from it. That should include information about potential pain, options for pain management and alternative procedures that could be used.
The Department and NHS England recommend that, as part of good practice, the royal college’s patient information leaflet, which was published in 2018, should be provided to patients to aid decision making. I think that should be provided in advance of the appointment, because it is often hard for someone to take in all that information in the midst of a consultation. Again, I would be interested to hear from the campaign whether that is happening in practice.
The House will also be interested to learn that the British Society for Gynaecological Endoscopy recently published a statement to clarify that from the outset women should be offered
“the choice of having the procedure performed as a day case…under general or regional anaesthetic”.
It further asserts that the procedure should be stopped immediately if a woman experiences pain.
I encourage any woman offered a hysteroscopy to read those valuable resources along with any additional resources provided by their clinician. I agree with the hon. Lady that women often do not understand what a  hysteroscopy is or what is involved, and debates such as this highlight how important the procedure is, the options around pain relief and the different anaesthetics available.
The hon. Lady touched on the tariff. Previously, there was a different rate of payment for hysteroscopies carried out in an out-patient setting compared with in-patient procedures. I recognise that that is a concern for many hon. Members on both sides of the House because of how it affects patient choice and the choices that are offered to them. In the last debate on the topic, my predecessor announced a statutory consultation. I am pleased to say that as of 1 April, hysteroscopy out-patient procedures will no longer attract a higher tariff than elective procedures as an in-patient day case. That will hopefully make a difference to the choices offered to women.

Lyn Brown: That is absolutely true and we are delighted about that; I welcomed it in my speech. The problem that we now have is that if a hospital offers an anaesthetic, it does not get compensated for the resource that it has used. We need to go one step further to ensure that there are no incentives for not offering women proper anaesthetic.

Maria Caulfield: I completely agree with the hon. Lady. She made a point about having the data to see how many hysteroscopies fail and whether that money could be better spent on offering an anaesthetic up front to many women. I do not have an answer to that, but it would be interesting to look at that information.
Alongside clinical guidelines and access to high-quality patient information, I stress the importance of the voices of patients, which are critical at every stage of the treatment pathway. Decisions should always be discussed and shared between clinician and patient. The Government are committed to ensuring that the voices of women in particular are more central in the healthcare system.
The women’s health strategy has been touched on several times. We have also taken key learnings from reports such as the Cumberlege review, where women were talking for a long time about the issues that they faced before anyone truly listened. We need to improve that so we are not learning from such incidents after nine years of raising them on the Floor of the House. The women’s health strategy will include gynae issues such as endometriosis and polycystic ovary disease, which are conditions that do need a hysteroscopy, so I am pretty confident that we will cover that in the strategy. We will also have a women’s health ambassador—they will be appointed in the coming weeks; applications are almost closed—with whom I will meet. I want them to lead on these issues, where they can be a real voice for patients, do a deep dive into what is happening at the coalface and speak up for women if it is not working. We have guidelines, but we do not know whether they are being used in clinical practice. From what the hon. Lady says, it sounds like there are clearly issues that need to be addressed.
I reassure the hon. Lady that I am happy to work with her on this issue. Improving the tariffs is one thing, but there are still women who are not getting the information that they need to make informed decisions about pain relief and anaesthetic that could be available. I welcome the new information from the Royal College of Obstetricians and Gynaecologists on pain relief  specifically for this procedure, which will be out next month, and I will feed back to it on updating the guidelines to ensure that patients are involved in the process.
I thank the hon. Lady for raising this important matter. I hope that we have raised its profile and that women are more aware of their options. When they go to that clinic appointment, they can ask for pain relief, they can have it as an in-patient, and they do not need to have it right there, right then. I look forward to  continuing to work with her and all Members across the House to ensure that women are offered a hysteroscopy and can access the information they need and the care they deserve.

Eleanor Laing: Genuinely, thank you.
Question put and agreed to.
House adjourned.